Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
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:You did not answer my question.

If 'It' is appearing, then what is the 'It' that appears, to you anyway? You actually said, 'It' is obviously known, so what is the 'It' that is supposedly obviously known?

The appearance is known....

Correct.

Dontaskme wrote:but it's not known who knows the known.....

Incorrect. 'I' KNOW who knows the known.

You can for eternity keep repeating yourself and continually believe that what you insist is impossible. BUT JUST BECAUSE you say and insist on something does not make it true. Can you see and understand that?

By your own words of "wisdom"

Dontaskme wrote:there is no knower ..

So, by your own logic you yourself do NOT know, you are right.

If there is no knower, then how do you, yourself, KNOW this?

Again, to use your own words of "wisdom"

Dontaskme wrote:there is only knowledge are illusory things/ideas.

JUST MAYBE 'your' own knowledge, which you say is right, is in fact the illusory and thus false things/ideas that you talk about?

Dontaskme wrote:One knows the word rain...but not what rain is...or one knows the word water, but not what water is...do you see?

I SEE and KNOW exactly what you are trying to say. BUT, there is a way that the One, the big One, KNOWS not just what water and rain is but also KNOWS what all things separately are and what ALL things together is.

That way I will only discuss with you when you are prepared to be open to the fact that there could be a way that One can KNOW. If you are not open to this fact and Truth, then really what is it that you looking for, or needing from, here. If you have ALL the answers, then what else do you need?

You seem to have a tendency to look from only the human perspective. This is where and why you are getting the confusion between the big 'I', the One and the little 'i', 'you', all the separate human thoughts and ideas. You are assuming that just because 'you', a separate human identity can not find the answer to something, then that means no other thing can. The Truth is the One maybe in fact already KNOWS all answers.

Until you are open to this Truth you will never see and understand fully.

Just another one of your contradictions is when you are the one who says, Whatever could exist would exist NOW. If you are right and that statement is true, then the Truth is the One that could know ALL, including what It Self is, already knows ALL of this.

Can you see this?

ken wrote:Although you do now say 'It' is not known, but you say 'It' still appears. So again what is 'It' that still appears, to you.

IT appears, but only as a concept known....via the idea about IT......it's not known what is appearing because the IT that appears as all things is not a thing, only the thing is known by the no thing. No thing knows what the IT is....ONLY what is imagined.

ken wrote:'I' know what 'It' is, so, 'It' is known. But, I want you to provide us with what appears to you. I will give you a clue on what 'It' is, 'I' have mentioned what 'It' is on a few occasions already. Another clue is in the statement 'It' is raining.

Can you explain what is the 'It'?

No I can't explain what the IT is....simply because there isn't an IT....IT is an idea, the IT is the idea, an idea can't know itself because it doesn't actually exist, IT'S an appearance that comes and goes, appears and disappears...who knows where it comes from or where it goes, maybe nowhere now here..no one knows.... where is here? what is now? all concepts/knowledge....all illusions....it's not an entity that knows itself. And it doesn't need to know itself because it already is it. This is it, but there is no entity outside of this that knows it...The entity is born of the idea, it's born of the mind....only the mind is born ...and what is a mind, I've no idea except the idea.

ken wrote:If not, then does not in of itself mean 'It' is not known nor that it could be known. If you can not answer that question, then all that means is 'you' do not know what 'It' is.

Dontaskme wrote:Like I've already said, there is no entity here to know what it is because it already is that one without a second.

Wrong. For reasons already explained. Of which you may or may not have read yet,

Dontaskme wrote:There is no you to know you because there is NO OTHER than you...

Wrong. For reasons explained already. Of which you may or may not have yet read.

Dontaskme wrote:what the YOU is is just what it appears to be in the conception. sometimes it's a tree, or a bird or a bear or what ever it conceives itself to be as a concept........

Wrong. For reasons explained already. Of which you may or may not have read yet.

Dontaskme wrote:that which knows all concepts is not a concept it is no thing NOTHING.

[/quote]

And, WRONG, again. For reasons already explained. Of which you may or may not have yet read.

I have already said 'you' are wrong here AND I have already explained why 'you' are wrong here.

The difference between 'you' and 'I' IS when I say you are wrong I then explain where exactly you are wrong and most importantly WHY you are wrong. Whereas, when you say I am wrong you just repeat what you think is right, without any explanation of why you could be right nor where exactly I am supposedly wrong or why I am supposedly wrong.

Another difference between 'you' and 'I' is you will not ask clarifying questions of me. You just believe that I am wrong, and so therefore think that there is no purpose in asking ME questions. Whereas, I have asked you on numerous occasions to clarify yourself so that I could get a much better understanding of where exactly you are coming from.

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:
If 'Life', IS the Universe, which is made up of ALL things, then that includes all physical things as well as all non-physical things like consciousness, awareness, and pure awareness. If this can be known, then 'It', ALL things, can be known by 'Its Self'. 'I' have just shown you now 'It' CAN and actually DOES know 'It' is Thee One and only 'Self'. 'My' 'Self' does know that 'I' am 'It', ALL things. Thee Creator and the creating of ALL things. Always have been and always will be creating ALL things right HERE and right NOW.

Yes of course, but this is not known by a someone. It is known but not by you or I...there is no you or I except the idea.

This is known by no one.

I have been consistently clear throughout on this.

'You' have been consistently repeating yourself that is for sure. What is also for sure is you have not been clear at all throughout this. The evidence of this is no one knows what you are talking about, besides 'Me'. 'You' also agree that 'you' can not make this clear by words alone. So 'you' agree with me wholeheartedly with 'Me' when I say, "'you' are not making 'yourself' at all clear other people".

Now, I have been trying to help you to express clearer what it is that you are wanting and trying to say, but you do not even want to help yourself here. I can not help you if you do not want to help yourself. So, this may be the last attempt at trying to help you. I will ask of you just one question, the same one I have asked numerous times before:

Who/What is the 'you',?

AND,

Who/What is the 'I'?

See if you can make yourself consistently clear NOW.

ken wrote:BUT 'I' have told you numerous times already that 'I' am the One that knows all these things that 'you' say no one knows.

Okay I give up ... who or what is the.... 'I' am the One that knows?

ken wrote:
The difference between 'you' and 'I' IS when I say you are wrong I then explain where exactly you are wrong and most importantly WHY you are wrong. Whereas, when you say I am wrong you just repeat what you think is right, without any explanation of why you could be right nor where exactly I am supposedly wrong or why I am supposedly wrong.

No, I repeat what I think is true for me, the way I understand myself to be.

I have never suggested you are wrong, only because I hold firm to my belief about no knower makes you think I'm saying you are wrong, and that's not what I'm saying at all. I reply to your comments in an opposing way but I've never said yours are wrong and mine are right. ....ever.
I the character don't know anything....I the character am the known, that's all I've been saying. I the character don't know who knows me. That''s all I've been saying throughout this conversation.

ken wrote:Another difference between 'you' and 'I' is you will not ask clarifying questions of me. You just believe that I am wrong, and so therefore think that there is no purpose in asking ME questions. Whereas, I have asked you on numerous occasions to clarify yourself so that I could get a much better understanding of where exactly you are coming from.

I have clarified all I know...I cannot give any more clarification over and above what I've already said. If you still haven't understood me, and I haven't understood you...then what can I do about that?

Dontaskme wrote:

Ken: Take that anyway you like, but that is Thee Truth. So, do not do the human thing and be so sure of your little self when in fact you do not know.

NO.. it is not the truth. The truth cannot be known.... The truth IS and you are IT....KNOWN ....that which is already known cannot know.

ken: 'I' can prove that 'It' can know 'Its' 'Self'. 'You' can not prove that 'It' can not know 'It'.

You don't need to prove it, because you are already IT... YOU are known....but not by you...the known cannot know anything, for that would require a knower of the known...and there is only knowing one without a second. The known is known in and as the known as it appears to itself, but the knower of the known is impossible to know....that would be like looking behind you to see who is seeing/knowing...not happening.



How can I prove you I am 'It'?

I cannot!

How can you prove I am not 'It'?

You cannot!

'I' will make this easier for 'you', if you like. You say that I can not know, whereas, I am the One saying that I can know, so the burden of proof can lay with Me. I love the challenge anyway.

Now challenge me. Do not just say that I can not know. Really challenge Me. But you just have to do one thing first:

Who/What 'I' am needs to be defined.

AND,

Who/What 'you' are also needs to be defined,

Before this discussion can continue.

ken wrote:
Who/What 'I' am needs to be defined.

AND,

Who/What 'you' are also needs to be defined,

Before this discussion can continue.

The connotations of ''I'' ''who'' ''what'' ''this'' ''it'' ''me'' ''you'' ''our'' are conceptual pointers the mind uses, mind being another concept, concepts pointing to other concepts....all pointing to the unknown body, and the unknown external things in front of the body.....thus naming the unknowable

That is the definition in my opinion.

ken: Now, I have been trying to help you to express clearer what it is that you are wanting and trying to say, but you do not even want to help yourself here. I can not help you if you do not want to help yourself. So, this may be the last attempt at trying to help you. I will ask of you just one question, the same one I have asked numerous times before:

I have no way of making myself clear to other people on a subjective feeling.

You cannot help this one here, this one here is already clear on this. Every other one can be clear on this too, no other one can help them, only they can do it, they will and can do it, it's inherent in all of us as we are all the same one.

ken:Wrong. For reasons explained already. Of which you may or may not have read yet.

I may not have read, you are right. I can't keep up with you to be honest.

Please explain what I am wrong about and why....but please keep it short and sweet using as few words as possible, so I am able to get the general gist without being bombarded by seemingly endless details.

That's if you are willing to reveal the right of my wrong, and that it's not some kind of secret or something?

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:
You say you KNOW all this but you also insist that you can not even know who you, yourself, the one who is saying all this, is.

I the character don't know this.

That is right.

The character playing a role in the stage of life, i.e., 'an actor', by definition is only acting, and until an acting character knows who they really are, then they will continue to only act. So we are in agreement here. A person needs to find the facts of who they really are, i.e., reality, before they can stop from only acting and playing a role.

Dontaskme wrote:What seemingly comes out of this characters mouth in the form of words is silence sounding. An idea arises I am talking..but no one is talking, it's just what's appearing from the no thing of pure silence. That's the contradiction ...it's divine contradiction. It's the subject/object duality at play with itself.

I know what you are trying to say here, but you need to gain a better understanding of where and what is actually talking. Pure silence knowing easily overrides talking thinking words. Knowing always overrides thinking. The contradiction comes from depending where the words are coming from. Either it is coming from the 'I' pure silence knowing Self, or the 'i', the talking thinking words self. There are two 'i's in this discussion now ken and dontaskme, but there is only One 'I', that exists within both ken and dontaskme and ALL things, that KNOWS ALL of what is going on here.

Dontaskme wrote:Can't have a subject without an object...can't have an object without the subject....subject can objectify itself as a thing known as seen.

But an object cannot subjectify itself and know that one...that would be like the eyeball being able to see itself...or the tooth being able to bite itself.

The KNOWN & SEEN is dream story arising in nothing...all illusory nothings...appearing real.

WRONG again.

The Mind can see and know It Self, from the Mind's eye. There is only One invisible non-physical Mind, which exists within any and ALL things. The reason human beings have evolved into a Self conscious and Self aware being is because of the open Mind. The open Mind allows humans to learn, understand and reason anything. Unfortunately nearly all human beings are not quite here yet. Being able to answer the question Who am 'I' is needed first in order to know the One's Self. A person can not, by definition, be Self conscious and be Self aware if they are not able to consciously know Thy Self nor be aware of Thee Self.

Here the Mind is the subject and the object. Unfortunately the Mind was unable to be understood because It has never been seen by human eyes. But the subject can know the object by the object being able to see, and thus knowing, Its Self.

There is a tremendous amount of information that needs to be understood first before who 'I', the truly open Mind, is fully understood. But once you are able to learn how the Mind and the brain work, then you will start to see much clearer.

ken wrote: I SEE and KNOW exactly what you are trying to say. BUT, there is a way that the One, the big One, KNOWS not just what water and rain is but also KNOWS what all things separately are and what ALL things together is.

And what way is that?

ken wrote:That way I will only discuss with you when you are prepared to be open to the fact that there could be a way that One can KNOW. If you are not open to this fact and Truth,

Okay, I'm open..shoot! what way is that?

ken wrote:You seem to have a tendency to look from only the human perspective. This is where and why you are getting the confusion between the big 'I', the One and the little 'i', 'you', all the separate human thoughts and ideas. You are assuming that just because 'you', a separate human identity can not find the answer to something, then that means no other thing can. The Truth is the One maybe in fact already KNOWS all answers.

And what are all the answers the ONE already knows, please explain all the answers?

ken wrote:Until you are open to this Truth you will never see and understand fully.

I'm ready to hear the truth, I'm fully open and ready, please explain?

ken wrote:Just another one of your contradictions is when you are the one who says, Whatever could exist would exist NOW. If you are right and that statement is true, then the Truth is the One that could know ALL, including what It Self is, already knows ALL of this.

Can you see this?

Yes I can see that...but, it does not reveal all it knows at once does it? no human knows what's going to happen in the next moment not until it's already happened.

ken wrote:
Here the Mind is the subject and the object. Unfortunately the Mind was unable to be understood because It has never been seen by human eyes. But the subject can know the object by the object being able to see, and thus knowing, Its Self.

I get that.

But why is this unique to human brain, why not animals and plants? why did subject use the human object as it's instrument for seeing itself?
I understand that the knowing is coming from the subject and not the object, but what happens to the subject if the human instrument disappears forever say it becomes extinct or something..what will subject use then to see itself?

ken wrote:There is a tremendous amount of information that needs to be understood first before who 'I', the truly open Mind, is fully understood. But once you are able to learn how the Mind and the brain work, then you will start to see much clearer.

ken wrote:
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.

Deleted reply / because the content was for one showing only, and is now deemed redundant...was my opinion only and not relevant anymore.

ken: Pity you deleted your response before I had a chance to see the one showing only.

Your response may have been very helpful for me.

See what I mean about too much information being given at once. I..like you... can't digest too much at one sitting.

We need to slow down and use fewer words in order to see each others perspective clearly.

ken wrote:What surprises me is you have got TO the answers. What I am very curious about is HOW you go there.

In a nutshell, I got to the truth, to the answers by instinctively knowing I wasn't separate from my environment that strange place that was beaming out in front of me from my eyes. I knew that I hadn't made myself or the world I was in. I knew it was a lie when other people believed them selves to be separate from me ...it was hard and very painful living with this knowing.

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: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.

Who are the 'some of you'? People on this forum.

Who or what is the 'self' you are referring to here. Your use of the word 'we' actually implies a shared self somewhere. No it doesn't. I used 'we' clearly to say we humans don't share consciousness.

Who is the 'you' that you guarantee to? Dalek Prime. You quoted me, idjit.

Who are the "boneheads" that you say, "I don't share doodley squat with..."?? Whomever is claiming shared consiousness.

Are you too stupid to read?

No, why?

Are you?

Clever monkey. Are you done?

Dontaskme wrote:

ken:Wrong. For reasons explained already. Of which you may or may not have read yet.

I may not have read, you are right. I can't keep up with you to be honest.

Now you know exactly how all those other people felt when they could not keep up with you.

Patience is needed when explaining what you are trying to explain.

Dontaskme wrote:Please explain what I am wrong about and why....but please keep it short and sweet using as few words as possible, so I am able to get the general gist without being bombarded by seemingly endless details.

If you had included your quote, which my above quote was in relation to, then I would know exactly how to explain what 'you' are wrong about and why what you said is wrong. BUT luckily I write in a way that I can work out exactly which one of the four of your quotes my above quote is in relation to.

Your exact quote that my quote is referring to in this reply is:

Dontaskme wrote:what the YOU is is just what it appears to be in the conception. sometimes it's a tree, or a bird or a bear or what ever it conceives itself to be as a concept........

After re-reading, you are NOT totally wrong. As you have also previously stated that the thinking and the thinker is the same thing and that the seer and the seen is also the same thing, and that the knowing and the known are one and the same. If that is what you still suggest, then that is true, and we are in agreement there. However, I also agree let us keep this as short and "sweet" as possible with as few words as possible.

Whenever I use a word in single quotation marks followed by a coma ' ', then the words after that word in italics is the definition I give for that word. For example, 'intelligence', is the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything, whereas, 'intellect', is only that what has already been grasp. As far as we know only human beings are the only intelligent species. Intelligence is what separates human beings from all other animals and species. Human beings also are the only animal that has a brain that is capable of collecting, storing and holding all the knowledge that has been learned, understood, and reasoned. I have to give definitions for the words I use so that the gist of every thing I write can and will be learnt, understood, and reasoned. Now lets see if you can understand what I am about to write and if not, then just ask me some clarifying questions:

There are as many 'you' in the world as there are human bodies. In short and sweet 'you', are thoughts. For the sake of this discussion thoughts come from within the brain and thoughts are related to thinking. Within each unique and individual human brain there are a set of unique individual thoughts. Sometimes known as the individual person.

You have to understand that within each and every unique and separate human body, and thus unique and separate brain, there is a completely unique and separate individual self. This 'self' is spelt with a little 's'. This self IS a unique and individual separate consciousness existing within a unique and individual separate human body.

This self is only one of about 7 billion characters and is only who a person thinks they are.

However, there is bigger 'Self', with a capital 'S'. in which all the 7 billion characters are connected with consciously. The Self comes from the Mind. This is how Oneness is possible. There is only One Mind but there is about 7 billion brains.

Is that understood and agreed with?

Back to the quote that I say is partly wrong. Because you are thoughts and as such thoughts are what is being thought, then whatever thinking is going on within a human body is actually who you are. So if a thought is 'I am a doctor', then that is who 'you', that thought is, but only to that individual separate self or any other individual separate self that sees and thinks that is true. A brain can only think from information that has been fed into it through the five senses, from the outside world. Thoughts are formed from gathered and stored in-form-ation. The brain then expels only what it thinks is true.

The Mind, however, because It is NOT separate from any other thing KNOWS what is true. The Mind sees ALL and thus knows ALL because It is ALL. The open Mind just naturally knows what is right. The Mind is always open but occasionally gets shut off by the brain.

If I do not stop now I will go on forever. I apologize for not keeping this "short and sweet", but without you asking me clarifying questions I do not know where and when to stop explaining.

Dontaskme wrote:That's if you are willing to reveal the right of my wrong, and that it's not some kind of secret or something?

If you are truly open, then what will be revealed is all of Life's, so called, mysteries.

The goal of what I will reveal is to create peace in harmony with and for everyone, so YES I am very willing to reveal the right of ALL wrong.