Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote: And, What do you mean by 'what is known is illusory'?

What is cannot be known....what is known is illusory since nothing can be known of what is.

Is this anything like when I said, the only thing we can be sure of, i.e., know, for sure, is the thoughts within the head.

Can you do me a favor dontaskme, when I actually doaskyou a question, can you please answer it for me. I ask questions so that i am able to get somewhat better clarity on what is that you are actually saying.

"What is cannot be known" does that in any way relate to when I said, "I am looking at the blue sky"? I will make it easy for you to clarify for me, is that a Yes or a No.

Is the "what is..." for example a blue sky, and the "cannot be known" part be close to the same as when I said we can not know, for sure, what is a blue sky? Again, just a Yes or a No would suffice here.

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote: What is the 'nothing' you talk about here.

Nothing or No thing is Everything. Everything without Beginning nor End .. Self's as they are imagined to be via knowledge begin and end. There is No one or thing to approach Oneness which is just another word for Self which is another word for Everything which is another word for No thing, there is no one to follow it to it's end ...and that's fine since it is all things and that which is all things is not a thing but arises as all things... things begin and end ...that in which things begin and end does not begin and end ..therefore cannot be any thing ...What begins ends, nothingness sustains.

ken wrote:What is nothing to you? If nothing is the only thing you know anything about, then you should be pretty well informed to be able to provide a very simple and easy to understand definition of 'nothing'.

Knowing nothing is the same as knowing everything, this is known but not by you or I ...you or I is an appearance in no thing already known.

My extremely simple question of What is nothing to you? is distorted with the above. I will not even go into your previous answer. I think the simplicity in my questioning is getting lost somewhere.

Dontaskme wrote:What this knowing is I've no idea.

Ahhh thank you, finally we are getting some truth here.

There my friends is the answer. Having 'no idea' but trying to express an idea. There in lies where the confusion comes from.

Dontaskme wrote:But it's obviously known else it could not and would not be appearing.

You are right in that it may be obviously known but until you have an idea you are unable to explain 'it'. I will prove this fact again. Answer this:

What is the 'it' in "it's obviously known else 'it' could not and would not be appearing?

I have asked you to refrain from writing 'it' so often, and, I have asked you to clarify your seemingly absolute absurdity writings. Lets see if you clarify NOW.

Do you know your writings on first glance can appear as insanity? I do, however, know exactly where you are coming from, but the problem here is, Do you know?

You do not have to answer that question by the way. You have already answered it when you wrote, "What this knowing is I've no idea."

Like I said, Ken, there is nothing more to discuss. Good luck.

thedoc wrote:

ken wrote:
Also even if they are not one and the same. Singularity at big bang came from somewhere. So nothing at all changes in what I write. I have NEVER said big bang singularity and black hole singularity is one and the same.

There is nothing to prove this,

Or is there?

If there is a universal laws that states 'Every action causes a reaction', then that would be enough proof, would it not?

thedoc wrote:even though it is the common human experience that any object or event is preceded by some object or event,

Is it really such a common human experience? I would suggest the opposite human experience would be more common. For example if i asked you where did you come from, what would you answer be? Think about how far back you would go.

I bet your experience tells you that it stops and began somewhere.

Now, look into the future and tell me how far you will go. Relatively not that far, am I correct?

"That any object or event is preceded by some object or event" I thought would be common learned knowledge and not common human experience.

Common human experience is being born and dying.

thedoc wrote:there is no reason to expect that the Universe will conform to human experience.

Exactly, and my point all along. I think i even mentioned it in this post.

I would suggest most people think the universe began, and will end, because they actually put themselves into "the picture" as they say. They see that, because, they had a beginning and they will end so they expect EVERYTHING else will conform the same way also.

thedoc wrote: Human experience is much more limited that the Universe.

Obviously. And exactly what i say also.

Are you suggesting here that the universe is in fact not limited because either something is limited or it is not. So either human experience is limited and so is the Universe limited, or human experience is limited and the Universe is unlimited? What is it going to be? We KNOW human experience is limited.

thedoc wrote: Common sense does not dictate how the Universe behaves.

That could be argued, but i will leave it alone, for now.

From your perception of 'common sense' obviously common sense does not dictate how the Universe behaves. But what actually does dictate how the Universe behaves IS universal laws. And if one of those laws IS Every action causes a reaction, then we know how the Universe behaves, i.e., infinitely.

After all this I will however have to honestly admit that I do need to re-word, Singularity at big bang came from somewhere. I fell into my own trap of appearing as though I believe (in) something. Singularity existed before quantum fluctuations in the big bang is that better?

IF the initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe, THEN how do these "scientist" know that it was in fact gravitational singularity of infinite density? That 'gravitational' word in of itself could suggest some sort of cause and effect occurrence was happening BEFORE singularity was fully formed in the big bang? Just food for thought.

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote: Extremely confusing wording, There is no you, because there is nothing besides you. Is that what you are saying here?
Surely you can find much more easily understood words to say than that,

Yes that's what I'm saying.

How does the original face / the imagless be known to itself without looking in the mirror at itself as a reflection.

The reflection and the one reflecting (mirror) are the same one... That's who you are. That's what everything is.

You are both the transparent mirror (the seer) and it's reflection (the seen) can't know the seen without the seer. Can't know the seer without the seen.

The seer is known in the seen, but the seen cannot know the seer because it is what's already seeing. (known)

There is only you, because there is no other than you.

You never cease to surprise me dontaskme. You have the answers.

I am very interested in knowing how you got them, especially when you do not know yourself. What path were you on when you come to this realization? Hopefully, you will share with me your path in how you got here. If you prefer to do that on private messages instead of in public I am totally fine with that.

ken wrote:

What is the 'it' in "it's obviously known else 'it' could not and would not be appearing?

The IT - the THIS IS IT is not known...but the appearance of IT as in IT'S raining is known via the experience of droplets of water coming from the sky.

ken wrote:Do you know your writings on first glance can appear as insanity? I do, however, know exactly where you are coming from, but the problem here is, Do you know?

You do not have to answer that question by the way. You have already answered it when you wrote, "What this knowing is I've no idea."

Yeah i know where I am coming from, I'm coming from the no mind, I have to be out of my mind to say stuff like this...when I tell people they don't exist as a separate self and that there is no one inside them, they say to me things like are you out of your mind and I say yes.

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote: I for one certainly will not accept something just because it said or written. I need to be shown how to find ultimate truth so that i can find it by myself and see it for myself. What about you, what do you need?

Nothing written or spoken is ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is the silence out of which writing and speaking arises and falls without a trace, leaving the silence ever intact. This is ultimate truth right here and now. Nothing to get, it's already got you.

Yes maybe, but my question was What about you, what do you need?

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote: Self, with capital S, is real and does not pretend anything. ken's big Self is dontaskme's one Same Self.

Self can only be known to exist in the conception of itself which is illusory/pretence. Or in the dream of separation.


Does the BIG SELF of dolphins have to know how to swim?

There is no big Self of dolphins.

The big Self is One..... (with everything, if you like)

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:Although what you are trying to reveal is actually easy to explain, finding the right words to make revelation distinctly clear for everyone takes a bit longer.

I don't agree.

This can never be revealed using words, words obscure the pure clarity of what it is that's being spoken about.

So why are you trying then? What else could you use?

If this can never be revealed using words, then why use words here and now?

With the use of the right words, words, in of themselves, can in fact clarify to pure clarity.

If you believe your words here, then what are you creating?

Dontaskme wrote: Words can be the catalyst toward a deeper understanding of ultimate reality, but the ultimate seeing comes from the tacit Self alone, not from the word.

Of course, But 'I', the tacit Self, want to be revealed. Your persistence is proof of this fact.

'I' am teaching how 'you' are also able to become and thus see from the tacit Self to.

'Seeing', can just mean understanding. So, the ultimate understanding comes from the tacit Self alone, but sharing that understanding is best done through words of knowledge.

Unless you know of a better way to share this knowledge???

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:Define 'no one' here?

What do you mean 'no one is actually alive'?

No one knows it is alive. The one that knows it is alive is knowledge or memory which is dead. Therefore nothing is alive, nothing is dead.

I really think dontaskme gets the person and the brain/body and the true tacit Self confused, sometimes.

Try and define the three different things from each other and see if that helps.

You obviously are not wanting to ask for help in separating and defining the different things that make up the One and only Real Self.

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote: There is no one OR other.

The big 'I' Self knows. The little 'i' self thinks, 'it knows'.

The knowing that beats the heart and moves the body is the same knowing that knows every thought. What that knowing is is unkowable.

Again, just because dontaskme has not YET what the knowing is, then that in of itself does not mean that what the knowing is unknowable.

The truth is 'I' have found the way to know what the knowing is.

I have even explained what that knowing is here in this post, for all to see and challenge me on.

If, and when, you stop believing in what you do not know, then you will also be able to learn.

Dontaskme wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Was I waiting to be conceived? Is everyone yet to be conceived, waiting for that moment? Can you be as direct as possible with your answer?

No thing is or has ever been conceived except the concept in this conception.

Anything that can happen will happen because it can.

But nothing that happens happens to a concept. If it did, it would be like saying the word water got wet.

There's just life living itself - no beginning no end. Nothing was born so nothing can die.

Okay, we have nothing to discuss. Appreciate the direct answer. Saves a lot on head banging.

ken wrote: If there is a universal laws that states 'Every action causes a reaction', then that would be enough proof, would it not?

This appears to be a paraphrasing of one of Newton's laws of motion, and such laws are descriptive not prescriptive, these laws only describe what is observed, and do not dictate how the Universe works. So they don't prove anything except to provide proof of what has been observed and no proof of what has preceded it.

ken wrote:

thedoc wrote:even though it is the common human experience that any object or event is preceded by some object or event,

Is it really such a common human experience? I would suggest the opposite human experience would be more common. For example if i asked you where did you come from, what would you answer be? Think about how far back you would go.

I bet your experience tells you that it stops and began somewhere.

Now, look into the future and tell me how far you will go. Relatively not that far, am I correct?

"That any object or event is preceded by some object or event" I thought would be common learned knowledge and not common human experience.

Common human experience is being born and dying.

This depends on how fine a point you want to put on it.

The theory is that In the broadest sense the subatomic particles that form the atoms in my body were created in the Big Bang, the beginning of time, and will continue till the end of the Universe, at the end of time. Of course there are much closer beginnings and there could be a closer ending. Are you speaking of human beings, or life on Earth, either are much closer to the now of the present.

ken wrote:

thedoc wrote:there is no reason to expect that the Universe will conform to human experience.

Exactly, and my point all along. I think i even mentioned it in this post.
I would suggest most people think the universe began, and will end, because they actually put themselves into "the picture" as they say. They see that, because, they had a beginning and they will end so they expect EVERYTHING else will conform the same way also.

thedoc wrote: Human experience is much more limited that the Universe.

Obviously. And exactly what i say also.
Are you suggesting here that the universe is in fact not limited because either something is limited or it is not. So either human experience is limited and so is the Universe limited, or human experience is limited and the Universe is unlimited? What is it going to be? We KNOW human experience is limited.

thedoc wrote: Common sense does not dictate how the Universe behaves.

That could be argued, but i will leave it alone, for now.
From your perception of 'common sense' obviously common sense does not dictate how the Universe behaves. But what actually does dictate how the Universe behaves IS universal laws. And if one of those laws IS Every action causes a reaction, then we know how the Universe behaves, i.e., infinitely.

After all this I will however have to honestly admit that I do need to re-word, Singularity at big bang came from somewhere. I fell into my own trap of appearing as though I believe (in) something. Singularity existed before quantum fluctuations in the big bang is that better?

IF the initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe, THEN how do these "scientist" know that it was in fact gravitational singularity of infinite density? That 'gravitational' word in of itself could suggest some sort of cause and effect occurrence was happening BEFORE singularity was fully formed in the big bang? Just food for thought.

It is my understanding that science can only describe the Universe back to a very small fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and any honest scientists will admit that before that is not known. It is possible that at some time in the future there may be a description of the actual Big bang, but for now there is none. All this is based on observing what is now and working backward to theorize what came before. Admittedly there are several theories out there, some more crazy than others, but some are based on models of what actually is.

Where the hell do some of you get the absolutely stupid notion that we or other conscious beings share 'self'? I can guarantee you I don't share doodley squat with any of you boneheads.