Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:44 am

Age wrote:
Most of the Universe is empty space but this is NOT what the Universe IS

The Universe Itself can be seen as a biological entity no matter what most of It is seen as

I think the Universe is a physical entity

But you just said, "Most of the Universe is empty space", correct?

If yes, then is 'empty space', to you, physical or physical matter?

If most of the Universe is non-physical but you think (maybe see?) the Universe is a physical entity, when only a small part of the Universe is physical, then that means if the Universe is only some parts biological, then you could also see the Universe as being a biological entity? Or, does it not work that way?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:44 am with some biological life within it but is not biological as such

Okay, if that is how it is to you, then that is how it is, to you.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:44 amI therefore do not agree with your statement that it can be seen as a biological entity though you do

So, how could you logically disagree, or dispute, that "it can be seen as (whatever)" if that is EXACTLY how I do see 'it'?

If I see any thing in any particular way, then that is logically HOW I can and HOW I DO see it.

You can obviously logically disagree to see some thing the same way I do, and this is PERFECTLY NORMAL and UNDERSTANDABLE.

But to disagree that some thing can NOT been seen a certain way, especially when some one has specifically just told you that that is how they see "it", appears to be a very illogical, nonsensical, and a completely not understandable thing to say.

Unless of course you can show otherwise.

So, why do you not agree with my statement that the Universe can be seen as a biological entity?

What is the definition of a 'biological entity' to you?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:45 am

Age wrote:
What exactly are life forms to you ?

Is the earth itself really not alive to you ?

Life forms to me are biological entities such as plants and animals
The Earth can be said to be alive in either a metaphorical or a biological sense
But only actual life forms can be regarded as being alive in the biological sense

So, if the earth can be said to be alive in a biological sense, then, to you, is earth an 'actual life form', itself?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:45 am

Age wrote:
For a person who claims that their purpose is to acquire as much knowledge as they can they also appear very firmly fixed on
their current knowledge as being what is true right and correct and not really that curious to gain more or newer knowledge

A completely false statement because I am acquiring new knowledge all of the time

But I NEVER said you were not acquiring new knowledge "all of the time".

Also, I said "what appears" to me, which is NOT saying "what is" at all.

Obviously, "what appears, to me" is ONLY what "appears" to me, and what appears to me could be completely and utterly FALSE, WRONG, and INCORRECT.

I can ONLY gain a true perspective of 'what actually IS' if I ask clarifying questions, and that "appears" to be a failure, or by expressing things that I SEE, and then being told if my views are false, wrong, and/or incorrect, just like you have here.

By the way, I never said you are not acquiring new knowledge. I, however, just KNOW you could be acquiring far more new knowledge than you currently are.

I am very curious to gain as much as possible as that is my goal in life as I have said

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:44 am But what new knowledge do you think I am not that curious about ?

Any newer knowledge that contradicts with your current knowledge, which you consider to be true, right, and/or correct now.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:44 am And why would I not actually be interested in wanting to acquire it ?

It is not that you are not interested in wanting to acquire new or more knowledge. It is that because of who and what the 'you' is exactly, each time newer knowledge comes along that is in contradictions of the currently held knowledge means that that part of the 'you' IS WRONG. It is not that just what 'you' thought was right is now wrong, but, literally, 'you' "your own 'self' " was wrong.

But 'you' would have to FULLY understand who and what 'you' Truly ARE to understand this fully.

'you' ARE the 'thoughts' within the body. There is actually NO 'you' or NO 'one' that has thoughts nor thinks. The actually thoughts, or the thinking, itself is the 'you', the person, within a body. So, if ANY of that thinking, or those thoughts, is contradicted by newer thoughts and thinking, then 'you' have to literally let a part of 'you', or that 'self' go, which can be a very hard thing to do, depending on how much effort or interest has been put into that part of thinking/thought or 'you'.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:21 pmDid a species conceptually known as 'human beings' evolve, with the ability to conceptualize?

If yes, then that is a part of "reality". So, "reality" maybe did not ask to be understood. But, "reality" may have created, through evolution, a conceptualizing, thinking animal species,


so that 'It', thee True Reality could actually be understood, and recognized for what 'It' Truly IS?

And what EXACTLY IS this IT ?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:21 pmI must NOT be listening because I still do NOT know what "it" is EXACTLY

Oh I forgot, you don't know what IT IS do you ?

Age if you are trying to teach something to others here about the non-dual nature of reality, you better forget it, it can't be taught, it can only be realised via SILENT direct experience ) or by listening to what's being pointed to IN THE FORM of languge the only tool available. If you don't know what's being talked about by now you never will. But you don't understand that do you, and that's the problem that sticks like glue to you, this sticking point lies wholly with you trying to understand what does not and NEVER asks to be understood.

But you will keep on playing this silly game of (big I little i ) or ( big IT little it ) until you are lying on your deathbed.You'll keep playing this stupidity with yourself as and through the participation of other peoples thoughts until the penny finally drops for YOU.. which will probably take forever in your case. Meanwhile, your responses are just pure entertainment value for me, so party on. I've tidied up my cage for good, and there is no way it can ever be rattled by the likes of you.

You can keep on slapping me over the head with your over bearing counter arguments forever, but they will not stick to this one here.

.

Age wrote:
But to disagree that some thing can NOT been seen a certain way especially when some one has specifically just told you that that is how they see it appears to be a very illogical nonsensical and a completely not understandable thing to say

What I meant is that is not how I see it but obviously others can see it however they want to

Age wrote:
So why do you not agree with my statement that the Universe can be seen as a biological entity ?

What is the definition of a biological entity to you ?

The majority of the observable Universe is just empty space which is non biological

A biological entity has to be some type of life form and non exist in empty space
So I do not think panpsychism is true because not everything is actually biological

Age wrote:
So if the earth can be said to be alive in a biological sense then to you is earth an actual life form itself ?

No because I do not accept it is alive in a biological sense
It may have life on it but it is itself a non biological entity

Age wrote:
There is actually NO you or NO one that has thoughts nor thinks

I do not think this is true and accept that I exist as a one
But I also accept that this existence is merely temporary

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:46 pm 'Thinking' comes from, or is a part of a, brain. Whereas, 'knowing' comes from Awareness, or what I call the Mind.

How did you figure this out?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:46 pm The difference is 'thinking' comes from an individual brain, and is only a subjective view of things. 'Knowing' comes from the one and only Mind, and is an objective view of things, which comes from ALL.

I agree with you in that there is only one "mind"/awareness/reality, but an objective view of things requires concepts, thus it is based on thinking, not on pure awareness. If you would have had direct experience of pure, thought-less awareness you would know that there is no separation in direct experience/knowing.
Your description of thinking vs knowing (as stated above) is really not more than creating two apparently different categories of thought (subjective and objective thoughts) - knowing is the same as being, life itself, there is no objectivity present at all. All objectivity and relativity is added via conceptual thought.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:46 pm How I rely on KNOWING, is by KNOWING that EVERY One could be in agreement.

Again, you believe that you KNOW but really only THINK.
There is no every one, no separate entities, in direct knowing.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:46 pm Awareness of ALL things is done through an OPEN Mind

Awareness is never aware of things. It doesn't see - the closest you can say is that it simply IS (even as I said before: it neither is, nor is it not - as there simply is only it, to state: it exists, makes no sense)
Only thought talks about things - things are conceptual entities, they are not real in the absolute sense, but awareness is - it is reality itself.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:46 pm For example, when any thing is thought to be true or right, then just look and see if ALL could agree with it. If not ALL could agree, then, whatever it is, has just come from your own past experiences, and not what is necessarily true or right.

There is no ALL that could agree with anything. You mix up concepts referring to the absolute (ALL) and ask for agreement... but who has to agree? Six billion brains? I am not saying this is a horrible idea, it is very nice of you to strive for it, but it sounds a bit like the "Bodhisattva vow", which is taken by Mahayana Buddhists to liberate all sentient beings. A task seemingly impossible to achieve... yet liberating yourself (from the idea of a separate self) you will find that there are no sentient beings at all. Thus the vow is fulfilled. Not by liberating individuals, but by realising that only your own liberation is required to liberate all... Not sure if you understand this, but I thought it's worth a try.

I am sorry, but I can't really work through all the rest of your writings, they are too long winded, too confusing, and it would require 2 hours to actually reply - I simply do not have the time. If you like to keep on talking, would you mind keeping it short and manageable? Thanks.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:21 pmDid a species conceptually known as 'human beings' evolve, with the ability to conceptualize?

If yes, then that is a part of "reality". So, "reality" maybe did not ask to be understood. But, "reality" may have created, through evolution, a conceptualizing, thinking animal species,


so that 'It', thee True Reality could actually be understood, and recognized for what 'It' Truly IS?

And what EXACTLY IS this IT ?

Under the name "age" there is NO EXACTLY what this 'It', big 'I', is, until AGREEMENT is made. But 'It' can, and has been, referred to as Spirit, Awareness, God, Enlightenment, to name but a few. Some even call 'It' the non-dual, some say Reality, some say, Existence. 'you', "dontaskme" KNOW thee One that 'I' am talking about, through direct experience. So, 'It' IS, EXACTLY, whatever 'you' want to call 'It'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:21 pmI must NOT be listening because I still do NOT know what "it" is EXACTLY

Oh I forgot, you don't know what IT IS do you ?

Have 'you' completely forgotten what this 'it', little 'i', is referring to?

This 'it' here is referring to the CLAIM you were making about me, but which you NEVER actually make clear, you instead only allude to 'it'. And, you NEVER clarifying what this 'it' is actually referring to, means that what you say can NEVER Truly be listened to, thus NEVER Truly heard.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:55 pm Age if you are trying to teach something to others here about the non-dual nature of reality, you better forget it, it can't be taught, it can only be realised via SILENT direct experience ) or by listening to what's being pointed to IN THE FORM of languge the only tool available.

What gives 'you' "dontaskme" the RIGHT to even think, let alone TELL ME, what I can or can not do?

Who do 'you' think 'you' ARE, EXACTLY?

Please STOP telling me what I can NOT do some thing, especially when I KNOW I can DO IT.

By the way, I am NOT trying to teach any thing to "others" here about the non-dual nature of reality. So, your first ASSUMPTION is completely WRONG to begin with. Then, you attempting to TELL ME what I can NOT do is IMPOSSIBLY KNOWN, to 'you'. You just ASSUME and BELIEVE I can not do this.

LOOK we ALL KNOW that you are COMPLETELY INCAPACITATED to teach the "non-dual nature of reality" with words. I TOTALLY AGREE that 'you', "dontaskme" is TOTALLY and UTTERLY incapable of doing this. You have PROVEN this time and time again. So, there is absolutely NO disputing this FACT.

Therefore, we are IN TOTAL AGREEMENT that the words under the label "dontaskme" will NEVER, forever more, ever even come close to teaching "others" the "non-dual nature of reality".

What you also have to REALIZE IS, 'you' can NOT logically nor reasonably keep TELLING me and "others" what we can not do. This is because of the way the Nature and Reality of the non-duality, Itself, and the way in which 'It', big I, works. This 'I' can do whatever 'I' so please and want to do. 'I' ALREADY KNOW this FACT, so no matter what words that are written under the label "dontaskme" thee Truth will ALWAYS come to light, as well as set 'you' FREE.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:55 pm If you don't know what's being talked about by now you never will.

IF you quoted my WHOLE sentence, and not just a PART OF it, and even better still you quoted the WHOLE paragraph, then you would KNOW what this 'it', little 'i', is referring to EXACTLY. What I WROTE IS:
I must NOT be listening because I still do NOT know what "it" is EXACTLY that is supposedly being "pointed out to me". The only thing I KNOW so far is that from your perspective I "take everything that is spoken here out of it's original context that it was meant to signify and then turn it into one big entangled mess that no one understands".

Does the one known as "dontaskme" even KNOW the difference between the little 'i' and the big 'I' in the writings under the label "age"?

If yes, then GREAT, what is the difference,

But if no, then 'you' have NEVER shown absolutely any interest in discovering nor learning, and thus KNOWING, what the actual difference is here.

Maybe if you just STOP making assumptions and STOP jumping to conclusions, then just maybe you will just START answering the ACTUAL clarifying questions I ask you. See, the difference between 'you' and 'I' is I attempt to understand what 'you' are saying and meaning by asking clarifying questions, whereas you will NOT ask clarifying questions to 'Me' because 'you' actually BELIEVE what is already true, right, and correct.

The very reason WHY I keep saying the same things is because 'you' are yet to understand what I am actually saying, AND meaning.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:55 pm But you don't understand that do you, and that's the problem that sticks like glue to you, this sticking point lies wholly with you trying to understand what does not and NEVER asks to be understood.

But 'I' ALREADY do KNOW EXACTLY what 'It' IS. This is because 'I' am 'It' - thee Spirit, thee Awareness, thee God, thee Enlightenment, or thee SAGE, or whatever else that thinking 'you' wants to call 'Me'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:55 pm But you will keep on playing this silly game of (big I little i ) or ( big IT little it ) until you are lying on your deathbed.

And, the very reason I do NOT specifically make Thy Self is CLEAR is point out what the very reason is WHY 'you', human beings, are still STUCK in CONFUSION and distorted BELIEFS like; Thee Truth of Life can not be expressed in and by WORDS, their very selves.

By the way, there is NO "deathbed" for 'I'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:55 pm You'll keep playing this stupidity with yourself as and through the participation of other peoples thoughts until the penny finally drops for YOU.. which will probably take forever in your case. Meanwhile, your responses are just pure entertainment value for me, so party on. I've tidied up my cage for good, and there is no way it can ever be rattled by the likes of you.

Once again, 'you' keep alluding to things that 'I' am supposedly do, yet you have yet to ever clarify what it is that I am supposedly doing or claiming. Read those words again and SEE if there is any actual reference to what "it" actually is that those words are claiming.

For example:

What "stupidity" EXACTLY are you referring to?

What "finally drops" for 'ME'?

Who or what is this big 'YOU', exactly?

What "cage" are 'you' in, exactly?

Are 'you' able to get out of this "cage"?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:55 pm
You can keep on slapping me over the head with your over bearing counter arguments forever, but they will not stick to this one here.

.

Do not take my comments on, if that so pleases you.

But remember I have only been telling you to STOP telling 'me' what I can not do.

Some would say 'you' telling 'me' and "others" what we can not do, is 'you' "slapping us over the head". Whereas, 'me' telling 'you' to STOP telling 'us' what we can not do is just more or less telling 'you' to STOP "slapping us over the head".

What else do you think or believe are my supposedly "over bearing counter arguments here".

I absolutely AGREE that the one known as "dontaskme" is absolutely completely useless and worthless in being able to explain and teach the "non-duality nature of reality". This is CLEARLY OBVIOUS to ALL that read these words. So, I am NOT counter arguing any thing.

Thee only thing I am counter arguing is your actual knowledge, and thus ability to KNOW what 'I' can or can not do.

Inform us here HOW you KNOW what 'I' can or can not do.

While you are at it inform us of WHO and WHAT 'I' actually am also.

This way the readers will be able to SEE if you REALLY do KNOW what 'you' are talking about here.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:59 pm

Age wrote:
But to disagree that some thing can NOT been seen a certain way especially when some one has specifically just told you that that is how they see it appears to be a very illogical nonsensical and a completely not understandable thing to say

What I meant is that is not how I see it but obviously others can see it however they want to

Okay great, that is what I thought you meant, or at least KNEW. But because I do not like to make any assumptions at all, I just sought clarity in a way that I was hoping would work. At least I now know this way works. Although I find just asking simple non-assuming, straightforward OPEN clarifying questions to be a much simpler and easy way, sometimes the simplest and easiest ways do not actually work. But as long as we are getting 'there' it really does not matter how we do it.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:00 pm

Age wrote:
So why do you not agree with my statement that the Universe can be seen as a biological entity ?

What is the definition of a biological entity to you ?

The majority of the observable Universe is just empty space which is non biological

A biological entity has to be some type of life form and non exist in empty space

But thee Universe obviously does NOT exist IN empty space.

As you so rightly just pointed out a majority of the observable Universe is just empty space.

Therefore, empty space exists WITH-IN the Universe, and NOT the other way around. Just like a majority of the human body and animals are also empty space, but you call them biological entities, correct?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:00 pm So I do not think panpsychism is true because not everything is actually biological

And what is 'panpsychism' to you exactly?

And what has that got to do with what I am talking about?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:00 pm

Age wrote:
So if the earth can be said to be alive in a biological sense then to you is earth an actual life form itself ?

No because I do not accept it is alive in a biological sense
It may have life on it but it is itself a non biological entity

Okay, this is perfectly fine and okay.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:15 pm

Age wrote:
There is actually NO you or NO one that has thoughts nor thinks

I do not think this is true and accept that I exist as a one
But I also accept that this existence is merely temporary

Okay. I will just let this be, (for now).

One more, it might help you to understand my point of view:

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:21 pm Yes, but only conceptually.

Agree

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:21 pm The ONLY WAY you can understand this is because 'you', thee conceptually thinking human being, is because you have conceptualized the One into parts.

Agree

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:21 pm Otherwise 'you' could have NEVER come to and reached this conclusion. So, just maybe being able to look at and see the conceptual "different and separate parts" was for the very reason for you to be able to come to and reach the conclusion

Agree

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:21 pm ..., 'you' have, which you are suggesting is more true, more right, and more correct than other concepts are.

No, I have said multiple times before: ultimately no statement is right, but neither is it wrong - its simply a statement, a play of words - it is only right/wrong based on the conceptual framework one has/believes in. But the framework again is not correct, but neither is it incorrect - this is also the reason why you can never have a TRUE (or FALSE) conceptual framework - its simply impossible and arguing over these frameworks/beliefs is ultimately just a game without a winner

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:21 pm Just maybe the reason 'you' are able to see, conceptually, "limited things" is so that the 'thing', which you suggest can not be explained in words

I have never said it cannot be explained - I said it can only be explained within the conceptual framework one has (and thus using thought)

Now, there can be experiences where thought ceases and reality shines without separation - later we conceptualise these experiences, integrate them into the framework that we already have and try to communicate the understanding with words... just like you conceptualise any other experience - e.g. the sensation of "wind on skin" - and after labelling it, objectifying it, you can tell others how it feels.
But again: these explanations are again NOT it, they are a finger pointing at the moon - they are not Reality, they are an interpretation.
Now you can state, within your interpretation, that this sensation is good or bad, right or wrong, and it may seem to make sense within the conceptual framework that is employed, but the sensation itself doesn’t care about your interpretation or judgement, it simply is as it is, and because it is real it actually cannot be good or bad, right or wrong, it is reality, if you like it or not...