Philosophy Now Forum

Without labels or during a momentary absence of thought, Awareness/Beingness 'knows' itself as a single undivided field. Nothing can be said about this without reverting to the labeling mind. Even to assert that 'nothing can be said about it' is a subtle form of labeling. Within the word game there is no escaping this paradox.

Words separate that which cannot be separated, therefore knowledge informs the illusion of separation, the seeming paradox is self solving..in that it’s a myth.

.

The only real power here is this immediate causeless nameless awareness.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:23 am Without labels or during a momentary absence of thought, Awareness/Beingness 'knows' itself as a single undivided field. Nothing can be said about this without reverting to the labeling mind. Even to assert that 'nothing can be said about it' is a subtle form of labeling. Within the word game there is no escaping this paradox.

Words separate that which cannot be separated, therefore knowledge informs the illusion of separation, the seeming paradox is self solving..in that it’s a myth.

.

The only real power here is this immediate causeless nameless awareness.

.

Still a fable.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:01 am

Still a fable.

PhilX

So returning to the Op, why and how is an imaginary fictional paradox supposed to be solved, and by whom?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:21 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:01 am

Still a fable.

PhilX

So returning to the Op, why and how is an imaginary fictional paradox supposed to be solved, and by whom?

The OP is open to the world. You can try to solve it or someone else could.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:26 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:21 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:01 am

Still a fable.

PhilX

So returning to the Op, why and how is an imaginary fictional paradox supposed to be solved, and by whom?

The OP is open to the world. You can try to solve it or someone else could.

PhilX

Solving that which does not exist is the insanity here.

It’s all mental.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:32 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:26 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:21 pm

So returning to the Op, why and how is an imaginary fictional paradox supposed to be solved, and by whom?

The OP is open to the world. You can try to solve it or someone else could.

PhilX

Solving that which does not exist is the insanity here.

It’s all mental.

.

Then why are you here?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:35 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:32 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:26 pm

The OP is open to the world. You can try to solve it or someone else could.

PhilX

Solving that which does not exist is the insanity here.

It’s all mental.

.

Then why are you here?

PhilX

There is no answer to the whys of presence...why are trees here? Why is anything here?

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:43 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:35 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:32 pm
Solving that which does not exist is the insanity here.

It’s all mental.

.

Then why are you here?

PhilX

There is no answer to the whys of presence...why are trees here? Why is anything here?

.

Why are you here? What is the meaning of life?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:47 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:43 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:35 pm

Then why are you here?

PhilX

There is no answer to the whys of presence...why are trees here? Why is anything here?

.

Why are you here? What is the meaning of life?

PhilX

Who wants to know?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:51 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:47 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:43 pm

There is no answer to the whys of presence...why are trees here? Why is anything here?

.

Why are you here? What is the meaning of life?

PhilX

Who wants to know?

Same question which you can't avoid.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:53 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:51 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:47 pm

Why are you here? What is the meaning of life?

PhilX

Who wants to know?

Same question which you can't avoid.

PhilX

A question can only arise to the sense of a self..ie: the “I thought”...who or what is this extra head that wants to know is a thought....aka a fictional character. Fictional characters don’t have any reality.

Life/Reality doesn’t ask questions.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:43 pm (in other words, the Creator of all of reality as we understand reality to be – including us)

...should be exempt from being subjected to that ridiculously lame “stone” question.

This is great. So the old man is so weak, and so bereft of power, that he needs exemptions from certain things because simple logic defeats him. A simple Christian cure is to deny the validity of the question. He is exempt from this question. "Dear teacher, please exempt my son, God, from this question on the exam. He is lacks the power to solve the question, so we have got ministerial approval to exempt him from this question on the exam."

I say do not exempt him, but hold him accountable. If he is powerful, he can defend himself. If he is powerless, and people will laugh at him for it, there is no higher power to defend him.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:35 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:30 pm For example can He make a stone so heavy that no one can move it, including Himself? To date I don't think anyone has ever resolved this paradox.

PhilX

Stone as in the big ball of rock that is the earth itself, yes no one can move it, and yet it moves all by itself, why put another head on your shoulders, be light, and not weigh yourself down with myths like paradoxes ..

Yes, render paradoxes to the ranks of myths... well, my friend, a paradox is a real conundrum, they can't be solved, and thereby they represent the fact that NOTHING is all-powerful. Not me, not you, not God. There exists not one thing that is all-powerful.

Rendering the paradox to something valueless won't cut the mustard. If your words are sufficient to do so, then our word is sufficient to render your god to a whimpering weak wet puppy.

Words don't create truth. They describe truth. Much like you won't buy it if we eviscerate your god by saying "he is powerless", we also won't buy it if you arbitrarily decide which logic to apply and which not to apply.

You must accept the validity of the unsolvability of paradoxes. If you don't, then you are making an arbitrary decision, which is inadmissible. Much like anyone else's arbitrary decision to insist that god is evil would be inadmissible by you.

If you deny the power and validity of logic, then you are not for this forum, I am afraid.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:23 am Without labels or during a momentary absence of thought, Awareness/Beingness 'knows' itself as a single undivided field. Nothing can be said about this without reverting to the labeling mind. Even to assert that 'nothing can be said about it' is a subtle form of labeling. Within the word game there is no escaping this paradox.

Words separate that which cannot be separated, therefore knowledge informs the illusion of separation, the seeming paradox is self solving..in that it’s a myth.

.

The only real power here is this immediate causeless nameless awareness.

.

Please provide some evidence to substantiate the above claim.

I consider what you wrote complete gibberish. I desperately need some evidence-based support to see any shred of truth or valid insight in your claim.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:06 pm A question can only arise to the sense of a self..ie: the “I thought”...who or what is this extra head that wants to know is a thought....aka a fictional character. Fictional characters don’t have any reality.

Life/Reality doesn’t ask questions.

Logic is not fictional. It is conceptual.

Your entire argument is based on logic being fictional.

Your basic premise is wrong.

Therefore no matter what your logical argument concludes, it is not admissible.