Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:02 pm**

In it's attempt to understand....mind has to separate reality into a conceptual context.

As soon as that is done....reality is no more.

The 'reality' that mind has created,and is attempting to understand,exists only within it's own imagination.

No wonder that it is a little confused.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:02 am**

ken wrote:
EVERY one WILL PROVE that what another person says is right or wrong. When EVERY one is in agreement then there is NO one disagreeing. When EVERY one is united together in agreement then they become One. And THAT what IS in agreement IS proven right or wrong by that one and ONLY One. THAT IS who will prove this and prove ALL things as a matter of fact. When there is ONLY One then there is NO one else existing. Obviously
if there is no one else existing then there could NOT nor NEVER be any one to disagree nor disprove

I was always uncertain about this but now that I have seen the explanation for the first time I agree
with it though there is still a problem but it is merely a quibble and so not worth the mental energy

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 5:29 am**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:02 am
ken wrote:
EVERY one WILL PROVE that what another person says is right or wrong. When EVERY one is in agreement then there is NO one disagreeing. When EVERY one is united together in agreement then they become One. And THAT what IS in agreement IS proven right or wrong by that one and ONLY One. THAT IS who will prove this and prove ALL things as a matter of fact. When there is ONLY One then there is NO one else existing. Obviously
if there is no one else existing then there could NOT nor NEVER be any one to disagree nor disprove
I was always uncertain about this but now that I have seen the explanation for the first time I agree
with it though there is still a problem but it is merely a quibble and so not worth the mental energy

I would still love to see this problem though, no matter how big or small it is, as i am very much interested in gaining as much insight as i can.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:40 am**

From my experience of 'God' , it is very much like an A.I. and I have witnessed its ability to morph - change matter in an instant.

Did we evolve into some sort of AI run system already!?

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:32 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:55 pm
ken wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:27 pmWhile you continue to insist the the immediate KNOWING is unknown, but you continue to resist providing any evidence that this is actually the case, does NOT help the one labeled 'dontaskme', whatever that 'dontaskme' may actually be, because according to dontaskme, 'dontaskme' is NOT even a person. To dontaskme people do NOT even exist.
The immediate knowing is obvious in the living organism, it is the knowing that knows it is alive and breathing. Knowing KNOWS how to live and how to die.

Of course the immediate knowing is obvious in the living organism. The immediate knowing could NOT exist without the living organism. Of course the immediate knowing KNOW It is alive, and KNOWS the living organisms that are breathing are breathing. The immediate knowing also KNOWS what It IS in relation to the living organism. Knowing also KNOWS It does NOT die.

How could the immediate, and eternal NOW, KNOWING die?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:55 pmThat knowing is not known by another knowing, there is no other knowing. KNOWING IS one with the knowing, one without a second.

And that KNOWING One KNOWS what It IS, so that is why I keep reminding dontaskme that the KNOWING can be KNOWN.

Further to this the KNOWING can reveal Its knowledge to the things that are a part of Its Self, if It so chooses to do so.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:55 pmknowing IS not known by dontaskme, -- dontaskme is already known as a concept of KNOWING. Concepts don't know anything, concepts are KNOWN BY THE ONLY KNOWING THERE IS AND THAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS.

And, Consciousness KNOWS what dontaskme really IS, and dontaskme is NOT a concept.

Proof of this are;
concepts do NOT talk.
concepts do NOT write things in philosophy forums.
concepts are abstract ideas, which are within thinking or thoughts.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:55 pmDontaskme does not know what is consciousness. Dontaskme is CONSCIOUSNESS.

Consciousness refers to being aware, and the more conscious one is the more aware they are. Consciousness is reached when one is truly aware of One's self. When one is truly Self-Aware, then they have reached Consciousness. Until then people are just thinking about, what they are.

Again dontaskme contradicted them self here. dontaskme wrote that the ONLY KNOWING THERE IS, IS CONSCIOUNESS. But then immediately wrote dontaskme is CONSCIOUSNESS, and, dontaskme does not know what is consciousness.

That would all be very confusing to those who have no idea how dontaskme IS CONSCIOUSNESS but dontaskme ALSO does NOT know what itself (CONSCIOUSNESS) is.

If dontaskme could explain this, or not, then that would show others what the truth IS.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:55 pmI AM knowing consciousness, but I do not know what this knowing consciousness is...for I would have to be outside of it looking in, or inside of it looking out to know that.

Which is possible and in fact very easy to do, once you know how to do it. In fact it is so simple and easy to do, and KNOW One's Self and self, that once you can do it you can then NOT do it.

If dontaskme can NOT explain this in detail, can NOT clarify what it says, and does NOT even know what knowing consciousness (itself) is, then why does dontaskme keep saying things and wanting others to believe (in) dontaskme?

To Me, dontaskme keeps contradicting its self. I want to understand so I ask for clarification, but dontaskme is unable to supply this, therefore what is it dontaskme wants Me to do with the confusion being expressed?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:55 pmAnd as far as I know, I have never been able to step outside or step inside my own consciousness to get a peek at what IS this consciousness.

.

That is because dontaskme just keeps saying and repeating what it thinks and believes is true.

I will again repeat that to step outside or step inside of One's own self is very easy to do, once you learn HOW. If you want to learn HOW, then you will seek this. Until then dontaskme will just remain the confused one, wanting to believe that it knows the truth already.

dontaskme so desperately wants what it believes to be true, to be true, that it will keep just keep repeating itself. Instead of just STOPPING and being truly Honest and Open, and just looking and listening to what IS, which would help dontaskme find and discover what IS really true, which by the way some of is completely opposite of what dontaskme believes is true.

By the way, some times dontaskme says "dontaskme IS CONSCIOUSNESS", and at other times contradictory says "inside my own consciousness". "My own" implies ownership of, or separate from, some other thing. And, this changing and swapping of contradictory ideas and concepts happen in just the same one thread. In fact some contradictory sentences, by dontaskme, are said immediately after each other.

If dontaskme does NOT want to elaborate on, expand on, clarify, nor explain further what it just keeps repeating, then WHY does dontaskme keep saying these things?

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:42 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:13 pm
ken wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:36 am
To jttcom also, How would all humans be happy if they dropped their attachment to the desire to carry on living?

Either they will not be alive, and thus would neither be happy nor sad no any thing else for that matter. Or, they would be alive but not having a desire to be alive, so how would they be happy in this situation?
No thing ever died, a thing is an idea, an idea has no reality, there is no living tissue in a concept. Living tissue is the only thing that's alive, and it's only alive because the concept alive informs. No thing is either alive or dead.

But for the assumed human entity ...

Only the feeling of ever present death makes people wise. The simple wisdom that is dwelling within death – is the fact that we are impermanent. Actually nothing is permanent, except the death itself. The only stable and serious thing in everyone’s life.

It must be obvious... that there is a contradiction in wanting to be perfectly secure in a universe whose very nature is momentariness and fluidity.

.

dontaskme does NOT like clarifying My questions, and there is just to many contradictions to respond without asking clarifying questions, so I will just leave this for what it is. This speaks for itself, or does not, which may actually be the case.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:48 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:20 pm
ken wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:13 amSo, underneath the mask that you are exposing now lies the opposite face also, right?

Yes.

In spacetime cause and effect duality the opposite it also true.

But what you truly ARE is beyond that.

What ARE 'you' truly?

Can dontaskme answer that question?

And, what IS the 'that', which what 'you' truly ARE is beyond?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:20 pm Beyond the illusion of your dual nature is real timeless nondual awareness, watching your imagined dream self experience.

.

Of which dontaskme does NOT have any knowing of, and is in no way capable of clarifying nor explaining, is that right?

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:59 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:34 pm
ken wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:57 pm
To learn how to express better and much more succinctly.

Is just repeating clarifying questions the very best dontaskme can do in answering clarifying questions.

Dismissing answering questions wholeheartedly is NOT doing dontskme any favors.
Dontaskme can only offer what dontaskme knows from experience. I can only offer clarification from my own experience, so that will often repeat obviously. I cannot clarify anything you have experienced as my own experience, as obviously that has not been my experience.

And this is just another attempt at avoiding the issue.

I NEVER asked dontaskme to do what dontaskme says it can not do here.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:34 pmMy clarifications that I give can never satisfy what it is you want clarifying, because our life experiences are different.

But dontaskme very RARELY clarifies the questions I ask. dontaskme just wants others to accept what dontaskme says is true, although it is clearly obvious dontaskme does NOT know what it is talking about in relation to what (actually) IS. A lot of what dontaskme says would NOT be in agreement with the one and ONLY pure One.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:34 pmSo you can go on asking for clarifications until you are blue in the face, but you are never going to get what you are asking for, neither are you ever going to be satisfied with the clarifications even if they are given to you. You have already proved this time and time again, because every time you ask for a clarification and one is given, you then ask for another clarification to clarify the clarification given, and then you keep on doing this over and over and over again, and again and again...another and another and another .....until no one is ever any the wiser, or any better at communicating this what ever this is we are communicating...

.

I have already explained WHY I do this. So, that what IS true WILL BE revealed. I KNOW what IS true, and I KNOW HOW to reveal what (this Truth) IS to those who WANT to find and discover IT for themselves.

dontaskme's dismisiveness proves, by and for itself, what IS actually happening here.

If some one wants to express things as being the Truth, then they need to be ALWAYS able to back themselves up and ALWAYS be able to support what they say, with evidence and proof. If dontaskme can not do this, then so be it.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:35 pm**

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pm
ken wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:14 am.../...
From my perspective, Ken, you make too many assumptions about me and others, and I'm not interested in wading through and untangling that. It's your stuff.

If that is what you see and believe, then fair enough. You do not have to try and understand any thing any further, any more, nor any better if you so wish not to.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pmIt also appears to me that you are not as honest and clear and aware as you present yourself to be, by the way you spin your communication to dismantle the meaning of what others say, while redefining to patch the holes in what you say.

If you say there is holes in what I say, then instead of just taking your word for it, pointing them out would be much better for all of us here.

I dismantle the meaning of what others say, to show what is actually understood and being said.

What appears to you may not actually be true, right, and correct. Whereabouts EXACTLY do you say I have appeared dishonest, unclear and unaware as I present this Self to be? There is no real use assuming this to be case until you actually bring them to light, so that we can all have a look at it. Then we can see if what 'appears' to you is actually the case of what is happening here.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pm At this point you'll probably ask me to show you examples of where you've done that, which is ridiculous because you'll do more of the same with whatever I show you. This has been pointed out to you before -- it's not new.

You can NOT show examples and that is WHY you do NOT. If you could, then you would. It is that simple.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pmSaying that my religious upbringing is why I am resistant to the concept of "one way", shows the limitation of your own thinking.

If I said that your religious upbringing is why you are resistant to the concept of 'one way', and that has led you to assume that I meant that was ALL that led your resistance to the concept of 'one way', then that is My fault and I apologize. I meant that your religious upbringing was only a part of what has led your resistance to the concept of 'one way'. Although probably a major part.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pm People are inclined to identify "one way" which matches their OWN view for anything at all... because they want to be "right".

Have you gained this view because this is exactly what you do also?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pm Religion is just one example of that. I continually question ideas of "one way" because I see that as limiting (and potentially ego-feeding) when there is a whole Universe of options and paths.

Well I have NEVER said that there is ONLY one way, but you continue to point out this issue in what I say. WHY do you do this with Me? Again, I have NEVER even implied the notion that there is ONLY 'one way'. So, WHY do you see it in My writings?

WHAT EXACTLY leads you, or led you. to see what is NOT there in My writings?

If you were honest and open about this, then we might actually be able to move on and forward.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pmI realize it really pisses people off sometimes when I question/challenge their idea of "one way".

The WHOLE thing that IS really annoying with what you do IS that you NEVER point out where I have allegedly said nor even implied there is 'one way'. You just keep repeating those words as though they are in My writings some where, when THEY ARE NOT.

If what you say is in My writings, then bring it to light so that you CAN question and/or challenge that particular thing that I have supposedly said.

Instead what you are doing is saying that you are questioning/challenging some thing, which really is NOT even here.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pm The ferocity ( ) I use is proportionate to their adamance and self-glorification expressed in relation to other people and ideas. As a result of many, many years of questioning the limitations of my own ideas/needs/rightness/etc., I am more naturally inclined to dismiss the notion of there being "one way" for anything --

Reminder I have NOT and will NOT say that there is only one way for any thing.

So, WHY do you like to bring this apparent top-of-list issue, that you have, up with Me constantly?

I can see the ferocity, within you, and I saw it from the first time you brought up this issue up. I just wonder WHY do you keep bringing it up with Me? What do you want Me to do about this for you?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pmand I see possibilities and perfection ALREADY everywhere -- yes, even in the entire dance of claiming or challenging "one way".

Do you really? If so, then you can also see the perfection ALREADY when one person says that there is 'one way' to some thing? Is this correct?

Or, are you be more inclined to DISMISS that notion instantly, as though it is NOT just a natural part of the perfection that exists ALREADY?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pmHowever, perfection doesn't always feel fun. And, sorry Ken, (for me) talking with you feels like getting twisted up in your convoluted vortex... and I'm ready for a break from such things again.

That is fine. I am VERY used to people NOT being able to continually discuss things with Me, especially when they are proposing that they know what is true and right.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:12 pm**

Storm7723 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:59 pm
ken wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:30 am
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:24 am Existence has to exist infinitely because non existence cannot but not every thing that does exist however is infinite
In fact nothing infinite is known to exist other than existence itself. Existence is not an object or a thing but a state
To Me also this is very true.

EVERY thing, besides the Universe, Itself, or ALL-THERE-IS, comes into and out of existence. Or in other words is born, lives or exists for a while, then dies or disappears. ALL things, besides the Universe, appear, and then disappear. But they actually do not come from no where nor from some where else, nor do they go any where else either. They all just change in shape and form. ALL things are just a part of the One (Universe) thing, which Itself IS constantly-changing in shape and form. This is just what IS.

EVERY thing exists within, or is a part of, the Universe. Even heaven and hell are within the Universe, and just as you alluded to they are not an object but a state.

There is NO thing beyond, outside of, above, or any where else besides within, or a part of, ALL-THERE-IS, which is the Universe, Itself. Obviously because light diminishes over distance, there is therefore no way to see what is past a certain point. But with the progression of human technology so to do telescopes get bigger and better, and with that comes being able to see further, and with that ability comes the discovery that the Universe is always appearing bigger than previously 'thought'. When this is written human beings had come to realization that they can only see a part of the Universe and so named it - the observable universe. But still most with the illusion that the Universe is finite and/or expanding. But until I am proven wrong the Universe is infinite and eternal. Contrary to popular belief there is NO thing outside of the Universe, which could have created the Universe. The ONLY thing that Created the Universe IS the Universe, Itself. It is Creating, Its Self, NOW, always has and always will.

The Universe, Itself, is also, contrary to popular, NOT expanding. What might appear to be happening is sometimes NOT actually happening. From earth to some human beings looking out it appears to them the Universe is expanding and so that is what they say is happening. But if those same people where at that distance out from earth where the Universe appears to expanding and they looked back at the same distance as the earth is they would say the same thing. But obviously from things close to earth they are not expanding, and especially at the rate some human beings say expansion is happening. The illusion caused is partly from basic optic illusion but mostly from viewing things based on prior inaccurate knowledge. There was NO beginning of the Universe. The Universe was NOT created at one definitive moment. But because there is only a constant flow of NOW, from that sense what happens NOW is the beginning for the rest of the Universe, or what happens NOW Creates the "future". Basing the way you look at things from the knowledge that EVERYTHING was created as some prior point distorts what IS.

For EVERY thing to be created at least two things prior were needed. And, these two things have to interact to cause, or create, some thing new. This happens for ALL things, even including the Universe, Itself. Although the Universe is One thing, It is still made up of at least two things. The Universe at Its most basic and fundamental level can not NOT exist with the two things of physical matter and no thing. An infinite no thing would literally be nothing, and, an infinite compression of matter, with out no thing around it or in between it, would be a fixed, solid of unchangeable ability. Therefore, although it would be some thing, it would exist as, and thus is about as useless as, nothing. The Universe exists because of the two things, and, the Universe could NOT exist without the two. So, for absolutely EVERY thing there must be two things existing. And, even if at any moment of NOW there was only one piece of infinite compression of matter, with a space or no thing surrounding it, then that was just how the Universe was in that moment of NOW. The shape and form of the Universe at any given moment of NOW just IS how It is.
So I know I'm a little late to this conversation but this was interesting to me. You say that the universe was never really created but is eternal, so are you disagreeing with the big bang theory then?

If there was some evidence to support the idea that that big bang, in question, was the beginning or the start of ALL-THERE IS, or the Universe, then I would NOT be disagreeing with that idea.

However, there is NO evidence to support that idea.

From what I have observed the Universe appears to be infinite and eternal, but I am still very OPEN to other views. So yes, at the moment, I disagree with the idea that a big bang was supposedly the beginning of EVERY thing.

Storm7723 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:59 pmExcuse my ability to ask the obvious I'm just curious as to what you'll say.

You certainly do NOT have to excuse your self for asking clarifying questions. In fact I seek them out and welcome them. The more the merrier I say.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:54 pm**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:29 am
ken wrote:
What is happening right now IS really happening but what is really happening right now is NOT reality
because reality relates to what is really wanted or desired NOT what is really happening right now
You have got that entirely wrong since what is happening right now is reality because that is how it is defined

That is how 'reality' is defined, by who? And, how many of them?

And, is that definition of 'reality', which is being defined right now, the exact same definition of 'reality' that was the exact same forever in the past and forever more will be the exact same into the future?

Because, according to your logic here, if 'reality' IS what is happening right now, then, if at any time, what was actually happening right then, at that time IS 'reality' also, but, if at that other time, the definition of 'reality' was to become different, then, 'what was happening at that time right then', would NOT be 'reality'.

Since I have the definition of 'reality' entirely wrong, and, you say you KNOW that 'what is happening right now' IS reality, then the definition of 'reality' could NEVER change, forever more.

Therefore, if 'what is happening right now', as seen in any time in the future from now, a truly happy, peaceful and harmonious life comes to fruition and is happening at that time, then that IS 'reality'.

That ideal, or ideality of a truly peaceful, life is what most adults and ALL children want and desire anyway. We, ALL human beings, once upon a time wanted to live that way of life. Also, 'we', human beings, can ALL be seen as just children in Life. That is if we just look at Life from the truly inquisitive, open, in-wonder, and wide-eyed way, which ALL very young children look at and see Life from, then we can SEE 'reality' is NOT distinct from 'ideality'.

The two can become One.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:29 amReality literally is what is.

What is happening now is children are being abused. So, when children are being abused, then, to you, is that reality, and, just what is?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:29 am And so subjective interpretation of what is wanted or desired does not change this

If that is what you see and believe, then that is fine. Because of all of your past experiences that view you have is totally understandable.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:29 amWhat is wanted or desired is not reality but idealism or utopia until it is achieved and then it becomes reality

Are okay, so you agree that a truly peaceful and harmonious "world", where everyone is happily living together, can become reality then? Is that right?

If so, then how do you see that this could become possible?

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:16 pm**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:48 am
Storm wrote:
You say that the universe was never really created but is eternal so are you disagreeing with the big bang theory then
The Universe is ALL THERE IS and so is eternal but this universe is not necessarily all of that just some of it.

How can the Universe be ALL THERE IS and ALSO be this universe, which is NOT necessarily ALL THERE IS and only just some of ALL THERE IS?

How can one thing, namely Universe, also at the same time be two distinctly different things?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:48 am It is just local cosmic expansion and
the Big Bang was the beginning of it.

What EXACTLY is just local cosmic expansion?

So, are you saying here that the big bang was the beginning of just a relatively local part of the Universe?

Or, are you saying some thing different?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:48 am But it does not mean there was nothing before it even though this is currently as far back as physics can go

Do you mean it is the human beings, themselves, who learn about and study physics, can only currently go as far back as the big bang?

Because as far as I can observe physics goes all the "way back" past the big bang.

The biggest reason those people who can NOT see past the big bang is because they assume and/or believe that the big bang WAS THE BEGINNING.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:28 pm**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:08 am
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:48 am
Storm wrote:
You say that the universe was never really created but is eternal so are you disagreeing with the big bang theory then
The Universe is ALL THERE IS and so is eternal but this universe is not necessarily all of that just some of it. It is just local cosmic expansion and
the Big Bang was the beginning of it. But it does not mean there was nothing before it even though this is currently as far back as physics can go
Also, the idea there was a Big Bang explosion implies a causer...and since there is no actual recorded data on what the causer could be leads to never ending questions that lead nowhere...life is a mystery, and Ken will just have to accept that.

I totally accept that Life is a mystery to dontaskme. dontaskme has proven that fact countless times already.

However, what IS a total mystery to dontaskme does NOT necessarily mean it is at all a mystery to ken. Can dontaskme accept this fact at all?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:08 am That Ken denies it's a mystery by claiming to know what the SELF is ..is a misnomer... he's just making it all up like the rest of us, in truth, no individual person knows anything, and yet everything is known, but not by I

What is the supposed right or accurate name then?

Is this an absolute truth known by dontaskme?

And, if so, does dontaskme want every one else to accept this as being absolutely the truth also?

Everything is known, by who?

And, who or what is the I, that does not know every thing?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:08 amReal Knowing is tacit...it's a fiction.

.

Is this a contradiction?

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:34 pm**

Relinquish wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:19 am Firstly, before we get to the mystery, allow me to point out what CAN be known.

In truth, the naturally occurring 'shape' of the causelessly cyclic Universal Process is the only shape that ever actually occurs in Reality.

Because 'Causeless Shapelessness' is ALWAYS completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical, the 'Causeless Shape' of this Process can ONLY be the structured ever-changing asymmetry that it is.

Fundamentally, ALL apparent 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually 'features' of this structured ever-changing asymmetry.

Now, the mystery...

WHAT this Process REALLY is, and the actual reason WHY it is occurring at all (and why the illusion of separateness and duality EVER arises within the 'experience' of all sufficiently complex features of the process) is absolutely unknowable...

...and yet, Here It IS...

...Here You ARE...

The point about mysteries is that they have occult solutions. That somewhere under it all there is a truth to be uncovered by which the mystery ends.
"Reality" is not a mystery.
Your heading implies there is some sort of solution. There is no warrant for that implication. This is not a murder. And Hercule Poirot is not going to to unveil the culprit over dinner the the amazement of his guests.

Reality is and always shall be that which each of us construct it to be, and modify with fresh experiences. Ever changing, never static. A moving target diachronically impossible to pin down.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:42 pm**

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:34 pm
Reality is and always shall be that which each of us construct it to be, and modify with fresh experiences. Ever changing, never static. A moving target diachronically impossible to pin down.

That which is known, to be ever changing, never static, impossible to pin down is not a mystery.

That which is KNOWN is pretty much all there is to know, however, that which knows the known is an unsolvable mystery.

I think this is kind of what we are talking about.

.

Philosophy Now Forum

The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

Re: The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself