Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:17 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:12 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 1:48 pmLovers, are very special people
They're the luckiest people in the world
With one person
One very special person
A feeling deep in your soul
Says you were half now you're whole

Even luckier are the 'lover's' knowing 'they' were never not whole. It takes two to love.

Love implies TWO

Not to bhakti practitioners when they really got the heat up in chanting.

But I wasn't referring to bhakti practitioners. I was referring to the luckiest people in the world.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:22 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:17 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:12 pm

Even luckier are the 'lover's' knowing 'they' were never not whole. It takes two to love.

Love implies TWO

Not to bhakti practitioners when they really got the heat up in chanting.

But I wasn't referring to bhakti practitioners. I was referring to the luckiest people in the world.

I was referring to love implying two and saying only to some.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:26 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:22 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:17 pm
Not to bhakti practitioners when they really got the heat up in chanting.

But I wasn't referring to bhakti practitioners. I was referring to the luckiest people in the world.

I was referring to love implying two and saying only to some.

The I that loves is itself, and requires two, the knower and the known. The Beloved.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:20 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:10 am Does It Matter Whether God Exists or Not?


Views?

All we can know is that 'Existence' IS without doubt or error.

Existence is ABSOLUTELY known simply by the sheer experience of ''Existing'' which can NEVER be experienced as non-existence, this is SO obvious.

So since existence IS, and could never be ''IS NOT'' ... it wouldn't matter if God existed OR NOT, because the known concept that is God would be all inclusive of what IS ... that could never be what '' IS NOT'' ...in the same context - Existence could never be Non-Existence.

So any difference, would only imply that this ISNESS could also be IS-Not, is the pure illusion of being both, yet neither.

So No. No difference whatsoever, except in this artificial conception, aka the dream of separation, dreaming difference where there is none.

"Is" or existence itself is not a predicate.
"Is" is merely a copula, i.e. a connector that relate the subject to a predicate.

"Apple is" or "Apple exists" is meaningless.
What is the real existing apple is;
"An apple" [subject] is "a fruit as conditioned upon the human based science-biological Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]" [Predicate].

If one think of reality and existence otherwise, that is mere speculation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:59 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:20 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:10 am Does It Matter Whether God Exists or Not?


Views?

All we can know is that 'Existence' IS without doubt or error.

Existence is ABSOLUTELY known simply by the sheer experience of ''Existing'' which can NEVER be experienced as non-existence, this is SO obvious.

So since existence IS, and could never be ''IS NOT'' ... it wouldn't matter if God existed OR NOT, because the known concept that is God would be all inclusive of what IS ... that could never be what '' IS NOT'' ...in the same context - Existence could never be Non-Existence.

So any difference, would only imply that this ISNESS could also be IS-Not, is the pure illusion of being both, yet neither.

So No. No difference whatsoever, except in this artificial conception, aka the dream of separation, dreaming difference where there is none.

"Is" or existence itself is not a predicate.
"Is" is merely a copula, i.e. a connector that relate the subject to a predicate.

"Apple is" or "Apple exists" is meaningless.
What is the real existing apple is;
"An apple" [subject] is "a fruit as conditioned upon the human based science-biological Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]" [Predicate].

If one think of reality and existence otherwise, that is mere speculation.

All I know is that whatever can be known about a concept such as ''apple'' is that ''apple'' is known, and that which is known, knows nothing.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:11 am All I know is that whatever can be known about a concept such as ''apple''
is that ''apple'' is known, and
that which is known, knows nothing.

??
that "apple" is known, know nothing?
It is odd that the known-apple must know.

The knower is the person who knows that,
"An apple" [subject] is "a fruit as conditioned upon the human based science-biological Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]" [Predicate].

And this knowledge [via science-biology FSK] facilitates survival and enable the progress of humanity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:29 am
??
that "apple" is known, know nothing?
It is odd that the known-apple must know.

Yes, the ''apple'' is a concept known.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:29 amThe knower is the person who knows that,

The knower of a person is also the concept of a person. The concept 'person' is also known...but not by the concept known, because that which is known, knows nothing. Do you agree?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:29 am
??
that "apple" is known, know nothing?
It is odd that the known-apple must know.

Yes, the ''apple'' is a concept known.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:29 amThe knower is the person who knows that,

The knower of a person is also the concept of a person.
The concept 'person' is also known...but not by the concept known, because that which is known, knows nothing. Do you agree?

The knower of a person is also the concept of a person.
I find this confusing.

Knower = a person who knows or apprehends

Thus I read the above as,
The knower [a person] of a person is also the concept of a person or,
The knower [a person] of another person is also the concept of a person.
So it is confusing.

This cannot be confusing,
The knower is the person who knows that,
"An apple" [subject] is "a fruit as conditioned upon the human based science-biological Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]" [Predicate].

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:38 am
The knower of a person is also the concept of a person. The concept 'person' is also known...but not by the concept known, because that which is known, knows nothing.

I didn't know that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:11 am The knower of a person is also the concept of a person.
I find this confusing.

Knower = a person who knows or apprehends

Only concepts can be known. All concepts are known as and when they arise in this immediate knowing. What's confusing about that?
A ''person'', is a known concept. . in this immediate ''knowing'' one with the knowing.

You are this ''knowing'' but it's not the concept known as 'person' that is this ''Knowing'', the concept 'person' is known ONLY by this IMMEDIATE knowing. A person is simply an idea arising in 'knowing' or consciousness, that can never be known, because how can consciousness know itself, it would have to split itself in two into 'knower and known'. But 'knower and known' always arise simultaneously in the instantaneous moment of 'Knowing' the ONLY knowing there is. There is no separation there.

'Knowing' cannot be experienced as a concept known, because knowing cannot experience itself as an 'object'.
What do I mean by that..well, 'objects' know nothing of their existence, 'objects' have no capacity to see or know themselves, they are simply being known as an idea, or thought in ''knowing consciousness''.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:11 amThus I read the above as,
The knower [a person] of a person is also the concept of a person or,
The knower [a person] of another person is also the concept of a person.
So it is confusing.

The knower of a concept is the only knowing there is. A 'concept known' in and of itself, isn't the knower, it's the known inseparable from the knowing. What's confusing about that?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:11 amThis cannot be confusing,
The knower is the person who knows that,
"An apple" [subject] is "a fruit as conditioned upon the human based science-biological Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]" [Predicate].

But a ''subject'' whether it be a 'person' or an 'apple' is still a 'concept known', but not known by the concept in and of itself. Concepts are known by the only knowing there is which is 'Consciousness'. And Consciousness cannot be known, by that which is known as a concept, nor can Consciousness be seen, or located by that which is known as a conceptual object. Why, because there is no 'other knowing' outside of this immediate actual ''Knowing'' the only knowing there is, right here and now.

The ''knower/knowing'' is not known as a concept known because concepts know nothing, and yet this immediate ''knower/knowing'' obviously knows all concepts as and when they arise in this Consciousness..aka this immediate knowing.

That's why reality is seen as an illusion, and why the knowledge, or knowing of all concepts can only point itself back to this illusory playof words. Yes, it appears that words and concept are all very real, but only in the context the concept 'real' is known by Consciousness.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:51 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:38 am
The knower of a person is also the concept of a person. The concept 'person' is also known...but not by the concept known, because that which is known, knows nothing.

I didn't know that.

That's right I

The I is known, but not by I

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:51 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:38 am
The knower of a person is also the concept of a person. The concept 'person' is also known...but not by the concept known, because that which is known, knows nothing.

I didn't know that.

If the I did know it is the knower. The I would have to split itself into two, the knower and the known.

Can that which claims to be I split itself into two Harbal?

Knowing does involve splitting oneself into two...or many.

The "You" of the Past,
The "You" of the Present,
The "You" of the Future.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:38 am Knowing does involve splitting oneself into two...or many.

The "You" of the Past,
The "You" of the Present,
The "You" of the Future.

These ideas can only be known now.

Now never moves. Now cannot move, only the mind moves, and that apparent movement is the illusion of the unmoved mover that is known conceptually as mind. The mind is known, and that which is known knows nothing.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:38 am Knowing does involve splitting oneself into two...or many.

The "You" of the Past,
The "You" of the Present,
The "You" of the Future.

The You of the past is dead, and is never here right now, except as concept known that knows nothing.

The You of the future does not exist, so could also be known to be dead, and is not here right now, except as concept known that knows nothing.

And the You of the present, is simply a concept known inseparable from the knowing, right here and now.
You are this knowing, that can never be of past or future tense, because now never moves. Only the mind moves, not YOU