Philosophy Now Forum

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:26 pm When "i" sit in a chair quitely for an hour there is peace and absolute (not dependent on anything) happiness.

The boredom you feel when it's just you is a symptom of something much deeper.

Yes, I am too intelligent for such nonsense.

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:26 pmBut feel free to continue on with your Samsara.

At this stage in our conversation, I am certain I have far more pro_found under_standing of such things.

From the way you speak, surely you can state something from which I can attain an epiphany, oh wise one.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:46 am solipsism posits the non-existence of the external void right at the beginning, and says that no further inquiry is possible.

Not really, it doesn't.
Rather, the solipsist's view is that if there is a world outside his mind, nothing can be known about it. And if there are other minds, knowledge cannot be communicated between them. So, solipsism is an epistemological claim, not an ontological one.
EB

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:31 pm

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:26 pm When "i" sit in a chair quitely for an hour there is peace and absolute (not dependent on anything) happiness.

The boredom you feel when it's just you is a symptom of something much deeper.

Yes, I am too intelligent for such nonsense.

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:26 pmBut feel free to continue on with your Samsara.

At this stage in our conversation, I am certain I have far more pro_found under_standing of such things.

From the way you speak, surely you can state something from which I can attain an epiphany, oh wise one.

No epiphanies, just peace and happiness.

Nothing wrong with not wanting peace and happiness, but if one wishes for these things one must transcend thought. Beyond the boredom is where the good stuff is.

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:04 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:31 pm

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:26 pm When "i" sit in a chair quitely for an hour there is peace and absolute (not dependent on anything) happiness.

The boredom you feel when it's just you is a symptom of something much deeper.

Yes, I am too intelligent for such nonsense.

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:26 pmBut feel free to continue on with your Samsara.

At this stage in our conversation, I am certain I have far more pro_found under_standing of such things.

From the way you speak, surely you can state something from which I can attain an epiphany, oh wise one.

No epiphanies, just peace and happiness.

I got shitloads of the stuff.

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:04 pmNothing wrong with not wanting peace and happiness, but if one wishes for these things one must transcend thought. Beyond the boredom is where the good stuff is.

Ok, then. Give me an example.

Is there peace and absolute happiness when it's just you, doing and thinking nothing? 'Cause that's the standard on which to base the "I'm happy" evaluation.

The "good stuff" is absolute happiness.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:51 pm...so being unreasonable is not a problem for me here, I know reason when it comes to me. So the problem is yours if you can't discern what's being said here, not mine.

It's actually very good reasoning from here, simply because I understand everything I am saying to myself, because I am the author of my own knowledge.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:16 pm...and the contradictions continue.

What is so contradicting about being the author of your own knowledge, namely, the knower?

Please explain the contradiction?

.

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:58 pm Is there peace and absolute happiness when it's just you, doing and thinking nothing? 'Cause that's the standard on which to base the "I'm happy" evaluation.

The "good stuff" is absolute happiness.

One of the hardest jobs in the realm of being is teaching yourself to be totally alone with just yourself.

There is a place of perfect peace, but no one lives there. (The Void)

Everyone is alone in their own aloneness.

There is here only the void, the void that is apparently alive is the same void that is apparently dead. There is no difference between being alive and being dead.. except what appears to the mind via concept.

This is the peace that passes all understanding...it's rare, but not impossible to acheive.

Nothing is in relationship with itself.

As soon as relationship is desired, you are seeking outside of yourself for someone to give you something to fill your own void, you are trying to fill a void with another void...it's a hopeless persuit.

Freedom at zero point, you're natural stateless state.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:29 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:17 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:06 amIt's not a ''someone'' who knows knowledge. You are the knowledge that cannot be known.
That which is unknown will eventually become known..

Contradiction in terms.
If I am the knowledge that cannot be known, then it is contradictory to state next that, that which is unknown will eventually become known.

Unavoidable.
The contradiction is also part of the not-knowing knowing. (Conceptually speaking)

Oh, shit - you must be super intelligent - you've circumvented your own contradiction.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:51 pm...so being unreasonable is not a problem for me here, I know reason when it comes to me. So the problem is yours if you can't discern what's being said here, not mine.

So being unreasonable which equates to being irrational is not a problem for you, and you don't care that others have to continually put up with the tripe of yourself, roydop and age.
Why are you on a philosophy forum - somewhere that attempts to be reasonable\rational?
Maybe try some mystic eastern forum where a semblance of intelligent rational conversation doesn't matter...indeed, where you can sit quietly for hours in a chair to understand the universe.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:51 pm

atto wrote:

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:51 pmIt's actually very good reasoning from here, simply because I understand everything I am saying to myself, because I am the author of my own knowledge.

...and the contradictions continue.

What is so contradicting about being the author of your own knowledge, namely, the knower?
Please explain the contradiction?

The contradiction - in this fine example - is that KNOWLEDGE comes from experience of one existence via inputs from the external to 'ones' self.
If you were born with NO sensory input - deaf, blind, no sense of smell, no sense of touch, no sense of taste - you would not have knowledge.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:58 pm
The contradiction - in this fine example - is that KNOWLEDGE comes from experience of one existence via inputs from the external to 'ones' self.

Knowledge implies a knower..there's no contradiction in that.

Knowledge can only come from the knower.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:29 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:58 pm
The contradiction - in this fine example - is that KNOWLEDGE comes from experience of one existence via inputs from the external to 'ones' self.

Knowledge implies a knower..there's no contradiction in that.

Knowledge can only come from the knower.

..and what would you KNOW if you were born with NO sensory input - deaf, blind, no sense of smell, no sense of touch, no sense of taste?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:58 pm So being unreasonable which equates to being irrational is not a problem for you, and you don't care that others have to continually put up with the tripe of yourself, roydop and age.

Nothing makes sense without it's opposite, so nothing wrong with the word irrational or unreasonable.

You could try adding some onions to the tripe, it might help make it taste better... give it some more flavour.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:29 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:58 pm
The contradiction - in this fine example - is that KNOWLEDGE comes from experience of one existence via inputs from the external to 'ones' self.

Knowledge implies a knower..there's no contradiction in that.

Knowledge can only come from the knower.

..and what would you KNOW if you were born with NO sensory input - deaf, blind, no sense of smell, no sense of touch, no sense of taste?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:33 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:29 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:58 pm
The contradiction - in this fine example - is that KNOWLEDGE comes from experience of one existence via inputs from the external to 'ones' self.

Knowledge implies a knower..there's no contradiction in that.

Knowledge can only come from the knower.

..and what would you KNOW if you were born with NO sensory input - deaf, blind, no sense of smell, no sense of touch, no sense of taste?

I wouldn't know.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:35 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:33 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:29 pm
Knowledge implies a knower..there's no contradiction in that.

Knowledge can only come from the knower.

..and what would you KNOW if you were born with NO sensory input - deaf, blind, no sense of smell, no sense of touch, no sense of taste?

I wouldn't know.

Yep - you'd know nuffin.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:35 pm.

Well said. Fool Stop.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:40 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:35 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:33 pm

..and what would you KNOW if you were born with NO sensory input - deaf, blind, no sense of smell, no sense of touch, no sense of taste?

I wouldn't know.

Yep - you'd know nuffin.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:35 pm.

Well said. Fool Stop.

Can't stop what never started.



.