Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
But nothing exists until we think them up?

We do not think, we is the thought. The thinking is the thinker itself. The thinker cannot get rid of the thought because there is only thought.

Thoughts create the thinker, the thinker doesn't create the thought..because there is no thinker. The idea there is a thinker is just more thought.

So who is aware of the thoughts as they arise?

BS

Dontaskme wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:
He seems to have some sort of (fortune cookie) idealist view.

Oh dear, it seems society just can't handle the fact that one can choose not to follow the idealist view but instead can actually think for oneself and take the higher view.

You believe that people expect others to be idealists?

Dontaskme wrote:

Dam wrote: what or who knows life exists..is alive?

Terrapin Station wrote: Persons do.

No, persons do not know anything.

Yes, they do, and they're the only sorts of things that know anything. Again, knowledge is a type of belief. Persons are what hold beliefs.

A person is a concept known....

There is a concept of "person," but that's not identical to what the concept is about, what it's formulated in response to. It's important to not conflate concepts and what they're concepts of.

this knowing of concepts is not known by the concept

Correct. Concepts are also things that persons hold. Concepts themselves do not know anything, since concepts are not persons. And persons are not concepts, even though there is also a concept of "person(s)".

...to say a concept knows,

The only person who would wind up believing something like "concepts know things" would be you, because you have a confused view where you believe that persons ARE simply concepts.

Dontaskme wrote:The thinking is the thinker itself . . . there is no thinker.

How is "the thinking the thinker itself" if there is no thinker?

Dam: No, persons do not know anything.

Terrapin Station wrote:Yes, they do, and they're the only sorts of things that know anything. Again, knowledge is a type of belief. Persons are what hold beliefs.

No they don't. The person is already known, but not by the person. A person is a known object which the knower uses as the instrument of knowing....much like a radio is used for the transmission of music...so just as the music is not sourced in the radio...knowledge known is not sourced in the person, it is beyond or prior to the person.

An object known ie: a person ) arises and falls within the subject knower which is the real you. You are not the false concept/thought of you, you are that in which the concept/thought arises....which is the subject knower aka awareness.

The knower is that which is aware of the object... the object is not aware. The subject which is always ( you ) cannot be what it is aware of.
What it is aware of is just an idea/concept/thought arising in it, already it, known only by it.


There is no need for awareness to hold a belief in what it already is. You are awareness without doubt...but often there is the belief in the concept of you without recognition that the concept is just an idea of you, known by the awareness not by the idea itself..

You are not the concept of you/or the thought of you..... you are the awareness of them...awareness is the holder of all things known... in other words there is a mis-identification with the ''sense of you'' and the ''real you'' ...the sense of you is a thought...the real you is that in which the thought arises.

A person is just a thought, a thought knows nothing, you are the awareness in which the thought arises, which knows every concept/thought as and when it arises.

The real you as Awareness is not a concept or thought, but this awareness often goes un-noticed as mis-identification with the concept/thought takes on the role of the doer/knower... identification with the thought appears to act as a distraction ..eclipsing the true source of knowing which is awareness.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:The thinking is the thinker itself . . . there is no thinker.

How is "the thinking the thinker itself" if there is no thinker?

When thought arises in you. There is the belief that you are that thought because it's arising in you....so you must be the thinker of that thought.

You are not the thinker or the thought.


You are that in which theses ideas arise...(thinker and thought are concepts..) you are that which is aware of every concept and thought as it arises. You are awareness. Which is everywhere and everything. Meaning it is nowhere and nothing....can't have one without the other.

I don't know if we'll get anywhere by doing shorter chunks of this at a time, but it's worth a shot. You can type hundreds of words in response if you want, of course, but I'll only be reading the first sentence or two, so keep that in mind:

Dontaskme wrote:No they don't. The person is already known, but not by the person.

The person is already known by what? What is it in your view that knows things?

Terrapin Station wrote:The person is already known by what? What is it in your view that knows things?

Awareness knows person. But awareness can't be what it is aware of.

You are the awareness of person....not the person.

Dontaskme wrote:Awareness knows person. But awareness can't be what it is aware of.

In your view awareness is some sort of independent entity, or? What sort of thing is awareness in your ontology?

Dontaskme wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:The person is already known by what? What is it in your view that knows things?

Awareness knows person. But awareness can't be what it is aware of.

You are the awareness of person....not the person.

But you said the awareness IS THE PERSON!!!

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:Awareness knows person. But awareness can't be what it is aware of.

In your view awareness is some sort of independent entity, or? What sort of thing is awareness in your ontology?

Awareness is not a thing. It is only ever this immediate seeing and knowing seamless presence here right now in which all objects/ things/ thoughts/concepts/beliefs/feelings/sensations/imaginings/perceptions (contents of itself) appear and disappear. Some call it GOD.

You are the former first and foremost...not the latter which are fleeting appearances arising within you. There need be no content in you for you to exist. The proof of which is found in deep dreamless sleep when there is no mental content yet you still exist.

The ''I'' in 'you' and the 'I' in 'me' are identical. ''I'' = Awareness. Awareness is not a thing or a concept. It does not come and go. It's always this immediate seamless here now ever presence that does not change or move. Is not born and does not die.

Every time we step back to observe who or what is there doing the observing, we find that the 'I' has jumped back with us. This is the infinite regress of the observer, often presented as an argument against the observing self being real, an existent. But identifying 'I' with awareness solves the problem of the infinite regress: we know the internal observer not by observing it but by being it. At the core, we are awareness and therefore do not need to imagine, observe, believe or perceive it. We are it. It's the conceiver of all things while it itself is inconceivable.

Awareness cannot be known or seen by the object it sees.

It is not the object it is aware of.

It is only because we imagine objects to be real, in their own right, that we imagine that Awareness is something that is not real, or at least that it is something that comes and goes. But if it comes and goes it must be an object and if we have the experience of such an 'awareness' object, something must be 'there' present and aware, that is not itself an object, that is aware of it.

Awareness knows it's not the object because when an object is absent from awareness. Awareness is still present. Always present.
You lose your arm, you still exist. You lose your eyesight, you still exist. You can never not exist.

Hobbes' Choice said

But you said the awareness IS THE PERSON!!!

________

Response:

I'm going to quote something by Rupert Spira to save me having to keep repeating myself. Hope you find time to read it and not dismiss it as BS
If you can't be bothered to look into my answers sincerely with open mind, then you will always be left wondering and asking endless questions to yourself,never quite catching your tail, if you do prefer to call BS on this..then in ignorance you will stay...that's your prerogative. ''The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.''

If you know this stuff already then stop acting like a moronic troll.

there is nothing present in our experience of an object, other or world, other than the knowing of it and knowing is only made of awareness, our self. In fact, we don’t know our knowing of an object; we just know knowing.

However, even in this formulation there is still a reference to a body, mind and world albeit one known by and simultaneously made out of awareness. It is still a position in which the body, mind and world don’t just appear within awareness but as awareness. That is, they are known to be made out of that which knows them. They are experienced as being made out of our self, awareness.

However, in this formulation we are still starting with objects, even if we concede that they are made out of awareness. But if we look closely we find that awareness, rather than objects, is our primary experience. So now, if we start from actual experience, that is from awareness, we find that it is awareness that takes the shape, as it were, of the mind, body and world. Awareness takes the shape of thinking and appears as the mind. It takes the shape of sensing and appears as the body. It takes the shape of perceiving and appears as the world, but never for a moment does it actually become anything other than itself.

At this stage we not only know but feel that presence or awareness is all there is. That is, it knows itself as the totality of experience. This could be formulated as, ‘I, awareness, am everything,’ or simply ‘Awareness is everything.’ At the same time, we recognise that this has, in fact, always been the case although it seemed previously not to be known.

Dontaskme wrote:Hobbes' Choice said

But you said the awareness IS THE PERSON!!!

________

Response:

I'm going to quote something by Rupert Spira to save me having to keep repeating myself. Hope you find time to read it and not dismiss it as BS
If you can't be bothered to look into my answers sincerely with open mind, then you will always be left wondering and asking endless questions to yourself,never quite catching your tail, if you do prefer to call BS on this..then in ignorance you will stay...that's your prerogative. ''The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.''
]

Seriously if you think this is life changing you are more arrogant than you even appear.

The highest form of arrogance is when you think your crackpot ideas are viable, interesting or coherent.
It is perfectly acceptable to 'know nothing' about a thing which has no merit, no empirical basis and is nonsensical.
Al you are doing is painting yourself into a corner where you no longer matter to anyone who reads your posts, and less to yourself.

Now you give it your best shot, and right off the plate you undermine everything you say rendering yourself meaningless.
"there is nothing present in our experience of an object, other or world, other than the knowing of it and knowing is only made of awareness, our self. In fact, we don’t know our knowing of an object; we just know knowing.'
It's nothing more than childish solipsism. Why not swing over to my place where is can stick my boot up your arse? Then tell me that there is nothing to my boot but your knowing the knowingness of it!

"there is nothing present in our experience of an object, other or world, other than the knowing of it and knowing is only made of awareness, our self. In fact, we don’t know our knowing of an object; we just know knowing.'

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's nothing more than childish solipsism.

(solipsism) philosophy: the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.

There is only SELF...no proof needed. Do you need to prove you exist? ..it's obvious.

Is there proof a separate other exists? .... no need, ...without other there is no SELF.......there is no face to self without a mirror to reflect itself.

Although it does appear that ''Other'' is outside / in front of you separate from you... it is not.. this you cannot separate itself from what is sees or knows... no more than a mirror can separate itself from it's reflection. The mirror is always and ever the mirror whether it's reflecting or not. The mirror never lies. It reflects only itself. The eye of the all seeing camera of life cannot lie, it can only see itself.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why not swing over to my place where is can stick my boot up your arse? Then tell me that there is nothing to my boot but your knowing the knowingness of it!

Like I've already said...an object is the only instrument available for awareness to know and experience itself. There is nothing present in our experience of an object..the object already is the experience awareness is having... the pain of the boot up the arse is not in the boot but in the awareness having the experience of pain as and through the instrument of boot. Only SELF experiences,feels and knows pain, no separate self ever felt, experienced, or knows pain...pain is not personal.


Same goes for the eyeball...the eyeball is not the seer, it is the instrument of seeing. Awareness / Self can't do anything without the physical faculties which are only ever appearances of awareness itself.


Similarly, there is no ringing sound inside a bell...the bell does not experience the sound,... the bell is the instrument for sound to appear, the sound is not in the bell, there is nothing present in the experience of a bell...the bell is the experience of awareness. There are no separate things having an experience...things are the experience awareness is experiencing.

The bell can be sounding away...but if there is no awareness to hear the sound.. then where is the bell.. where is the sound? ...same goes for awareness, if there is no object through which it can experience itself ..where is awareness...subject and object are interdependent ...they are one and the same thing being the other and vice versa. They are inseparable.



.

Dontaskme wrote:"there is nothing present in our experience of an object, other or world, other than the knowing of it and knowing is only made of awareness, our self. In fact, we don’t know our knowing of an object; we just know knowing.'

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's nothing more than childish solipsism.

(solipsism) philosophy: the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.

There is only SELF...no proof needed. Do you need to prove you exist? ..it's obvious.

Is there proof a separate other exists? .... no need, ...without other there is no SELF.......there is no face to self without a mirror to reflect itself.

Although it does appear that ''Other'' is outside / in front of you separate from you... it is not.. this you cannot separate itself from what is sees or knows... no more than a mirror can separate itself from it's reflection. The mirror is always and ever the mirror whether it's reflecting or not. The mirror never lies. It reflects only itself. The eye of the all seeing camera of life cannot lie, it can only see itself.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why not swing over to my place where is can stick my boot up your arse? Then tell me that there is nothing to my boot but your knowing the knowingness of it!

Like I've already said...an object is the only instrument available for awareness to know and experience itself. There is nothing present in our experience of an object..the object already is the experience awareness is having... the pain of the boot up the arse is not in the boot but in the awareness having the experience of pain as and through the instrument of boot.
.

Somehow I think you might change your mind when it actually happens and you will loose you composure trying to hold on to this childish philosophy