Philosophy Now Forum

I agree all of us are different. I cannot superimpose what I believe in on the rest and yes my understanding of the world I live in has a periphery of its own and yes yours can be a broader one or something. The subtlety with you which you put forth your findings cannot be gauged by what I say. However all that I am asserting is what I gathered from general opinions, from books I have gone through. When I say you it is a not specifically you or anybody else. This is chat or discussion and not superimposition. I agree you might have a fairer understanding of something I never can have but all I want to say even by use of ‘you’, ‘all’ do not mean to claim I know better or the rest have to compulsorily listen to me. I again reiterate that you might have a perfect understanding or knowledge of things I am totally poor at. However I am learning by questioning, discussing, making mistakes and the like.

haribol acharya wrote:I agree all of us are different. I cannot superimpose what I believe in on the rest and yes my understanding of the world I live in has a periphery of its own and yes yours can be a broader one or something. The subtlety with you which you put forth your findings cannot be gauged by what I say. However all that I am asserting is what I gathered from general opinions, from books I have gone through. When I say you it is a not specifically you or anybody else. This is chat or discussion and not superimposition. I agree you might have a fairer understanding of something I never can have but all I want to say even by use of ‘you’, ‘all’ do not mean to claim I know better or the rest have to compulsorily listen to me. I again reiterate that you might have a perfect understanding or knowledge of things I am totally poor at. However I am learning by questioning, discussing, making mistakes and the like.

Firstly thanks for a truly open response, it is very refreshing.

I certainly do NOT have an understanding of anything, which you nor any other person never could have. The understanding of the knowledge of things that I have were discovered and learned by questioning, discussing, and especially by making mistakes - or what I prefer to call wrong doing.

By questioning everything, and more importantly by answering everything, openly and honestly, then what I found is a perfect understanding or knowledge of things. A statement most human beings would and do scoff at. But they will never learn, and thus know, if it is true or not if they do not challenge Me by questioning, discussing, making mistakes and the like.

I frequently invite being challenged by questioning everything I say or write. I do this because when I answer unexpected questioning then I am continually learning anew.

ken wrote:
By questioning everything and more importantly by answering everything openly and honestly then what I found is a perfect understanding or knowledge of things. A statement most human beings would and do scoff at. But they will never learn and thus know if it is true or not if they
do not challenge Me by questioning discussing making mistakes and the like

I certainly do not scoff at this for the only way to truly learn is by questioning everything and assuming nothing. It is only by
doing this that one can acquire knowledge. And so assumptions should always be questioned in case they happen to be false

ken to Dubious wrote: I claim I am always open, but you will not even challenge Me on this…/

I am left without any confusion of how ALL the answers fit perfectly together to form the big picture of Life…/

what I found is a perfect understanding or knowledge of things…/

when I answer unexpected questioning then I am continually learning anew.

How are you always open and learning anew if you have no confusion of how all the answers fit perfectly together, and you have found a perfect understanding or knowledge of things?

Are you open enough to consider that you may have confusion?

If you have perfect understanding and knowledge of anything, how does that leave room for anything more?

Lacewing wrote:

ken to Dubious wrote: I claim I am always open, but you will not even challenge Me on this…/

I am left without any confusion of how ALL the answers fit perfectly together to form the big picture of Life…/

what I found is a perfect understanding or knowledge of things…/

when I answer unexpected questioning then I am continually learning anew.

How are you always open and learning anew if you have no confusion of how all the answers fit perfectly together, and you have found a perfect understanding or knowledge of things?

How I am always open and learning anew is by neither believing, disbelieving, nor assuming anything. If by doing this all the answers that I am arriving at are fitting together perfectly, without confusion, then this is just what is happening. I can not help this. If I am left without any confusion of how all answers fit perfectly together, then I am left without any confusion. If by being truly open always is how a perfect understanding or knowledge of things is obtained, then I have found it. But I do not think this understanding or knowledge that if you want to learn more or anew is better done by being open than by being closed is really some newly found understanding or knowledge. I think most people KNOW this already.

Lacewing wrote:Are you open enough to consider that you may have confusion?

Yes very open to that, and always will be open to that.

Can you provide any examples of confusion that you might think I have, which I could then consider?

Lacewing wrote:If you have perfect understanding and knowledge of anything, how does that leave room for anything more?

If you are open, which is how a perfect understanding and knowledge of any and all things is obtained, then what room is left for anything more?

Being truly open means opening absolutely every door, thus leaving every room open to inquisition. If absolutely everything is open, then there is nothing more that could be left open. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

ken wrote:
Being truly open means opening absolutely every door thus leaving every room open to inquisition. If absolutely
everything is open then there is nothing more that could be left open. Unless of course you can show otherwise

The problem here is one cannot be absolutely open as there are limitations on how open one can be. And the
reason for this is because human beings have emotional or subjective biases that prevent complete openness

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
Being truly open means opening absolutely every door thus leaving every room open to inquisition. If absolutely
everything is open then there is nothing more that could be left open. Unless of course you can show otherwise

The problem here is one cannot be absolutely open as there are limitations on how open one can be. And the
reason for this is because human beings have emotional or subjective biases that prevent complete openness

Can you provide any personal examples of this please?

I did write "Being truly open means opening absolutely every door", which would obviously include every emotional and subjective biased doors.

Obviously being truly open there would not be any emotional nor subjective biases.

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
Being truly open means opening absolutely every door thus leaving every room open to inquisition. If absolutely
everything is open then there is nothing more that could be left open. Unless of course you can show otherwise

The problem here is one cannot be absolutely open as there are limitations on how open one can be. And the
reason for this is because human beings have emotional or subjective biases that prevent complete openness

I did write Being truly open means opening absolutely every door which would obviously include every emotional and subjective biased doors

Obviously being truly open there would not be any emotional nor subjective biases

The fact that you are human means you cannot be completely open because of your subjective and emotional biases
To be completely open one would have to have no bias at all and be capable of thinking only logically like a machine

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: The problem here is one cannot be absolutely open as there are limitations on how open one can be. And the
reason for this is because human beings have emotional or subjective biases that prevent complete openness

I did write Being truly open means opening absolutely every door which would obviously include every emotional and subjective biased doors

Obviously being truly open there would not be any emotional nor subjective biases

The fact that you are human means you cannot be completely open because of your subjective and emotional biases
To be completely open one would have to have no bias at all and be capable of thinking only logically like a machine

A human being when born has no biases at all, except maybe the biases formed from the natural instinct to live. If the rest of human beings watched and listened to a new born human being, and probably thought as logically as they did?, then they will understand how it is very easy to be completely open and view things from a truly unbiased and unemotional perspective.

By the way, the I (and that is the capital I) in the question who am I? is not human. From this I, advantageous viewpoint, a truly open, objective and emotionless perspective is gained. ALL biases just wash away.

I asked you to provide some personal examples of your biases, of which you failed to provide. If you did, then WE could look at them together and I could then show how easily it is to rid yourself of those biases. What you are doing is saying what you do and then putting that onto everyone else. To look at truths and what is real is done much better when people look at what they themselves do instead of thinking that if i do it, then everyone else must also.

I can guarantee you and provide evidence that the collective I of everyone is NOT human. From this I perspective ALL Truth is revealed. But if human beings do not answer the questions I ask nor provide the examples I ask for, then I can not provide the evidence nor proof of what I guarantee.

If any person wants the proof that the I in the question who am I is NOT human, then they must become open, they must also WANT to discover how the Mind and the brain works, as well as be prepared to question themselves about what they do and who they think they are.

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote: I did write Being truly open means opening absolutely every door which would obviously include every emotional and subjective biased doors

Obviously being truly open there would not be any emotional nor subjective biases

The fact that you are human means you cannot be completely open because of your subjective and emotional biases
To be completely open one would have to have no bias at all and be capable of thinking only logically like a machine

A human being when born has no biases at all, except maybe the biases formed from the natural instinct to live. If the rest of human beings watched and listened to a new born human being, and probably thought as logically as they did?, then they will understand how it is very easy to be completely open and view things from a truly unbiased and unemotional perspective.

By the way, the I (and that is the capital I) in the question who am I? is not human. From this I, advantageous viewpoint, a truly open, objective and emotionless perspective is gained. ALL biases just wash away.

I asked you to provide some personal examples of your biases, of which you failed to provide. If you did, then WE could look at them together and I could then show how easily it is to rid yourself of those biases. What you are doing is saying what you do and then putting that onto everyone else. To look at truths and what is real is done much better when people look at what they themselves do instead of thinking that if i do it, then everyone else must also.

I can guarantee you and provide evidence that the collective I of everyone is NOT human. From this I perspective ALL Truth is revealed. But if human beings do not answer the questions I ask nor provide the examples I ask for, then I can not provide the evidence nor proof of what I guarantee.

If any person wants the proof that the I in the question who am I is NOT human, then they must become open, they must also WANT to discover how the Mind and the brain works, as well as be prepared to question themselves about what they do and who they think they are.

You cannot be free of bias. Your entire thread has a point of view, and without a bias you are mute.

As for the rest of your post. The moment you said "I can guarantee...." You seemed to loose the plot. Some biases are too ridiculous to contemplate.

Watching a baby is not going to rid human beings of their biases. So that is not a valid example. Also I never said anything about what I do and so did not project it on to everyone else. I just made a general point about subjective and emotional biases that human beings have. Your proposed solution to this is purely hypothetical. Your absolute faith in it does not automatically make it true. It is of course wonderful in principle but less so in practice. I do however think that it is important to keep negative biases to a minimum though they will always exist in one form or another

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: The fact that you are human means you cannot be completely open because of your subjective and emotional biases
To be completely open one would have to have no bias at all and be capable of thinking only logically like a machine

A human being when born has no biases at all, except maybe the biases formed from the natural instinct to live. If the rest of human beings watched and listened to a new born human being, and probably thought as logically as they did?, then they will understand how it is very easy to be completely open and view things from a truly unbiased and unemotional perspective.

By the way, the I (and that is the capital I) in the question who am I? is not human. From this I, advantageous viewpoint, a truly open, objective and emotionless perspective is gained. ALL biases just wash away.

I asked you to provide some personal examples of your biases, of which you failed to provide. If you did, then WE could look at them together and I could then show how easily it is to rid yourself of those biases. What you are doing is saying what you do and then putting that onto everyone else. To look at truths and what is real is done much better when people look at what they themselves do instead of thinking that if i do it, then everyone else must also.

I can guarantee you and provide evidence that the collective I of everyone is NOT human. From this I perspective ALL Truth is revealed. But if human beings do not answer the questions I ask nor provide the examples I ask for, then I can not provide the evidence nor proof of what I guarantee.

If any person wants the proof that the I in the question who am I is NOT human, then they must become open, they must also WANT to discover how the Mind and the brain works, as well as be prepared to question themselves about what they do and who they think they are.

You cannot be free of bias. Your entire thread has a point of view, and without a bias you are mute.

You are right in that you can NOT be free of bias, but you can only speak for you. You can NOT speak for Me, or I.

I can be free of bias and I am free of bias. If you can prove I am not free of bias, then prove it. But to do that you would have to first prove who I am, and to do that you would have to be able to answer the question Who am I properly and sufficiently. You are not yet able to answer the question Who am I, therefore you do NOT know who I am. Therefore, you can NOT speak for the I.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:As for the rest of your post. The moment you said "I can guarantee...." You seemed to loose the plot. Some biases are too ridiculous to contemplate.

Some human beings are too closed to see anything other than their own assumptions and beliefs. I have challenged you previously about what the Mind is. You are still yet to provide anything of any substance whatsoever. Feel free to still provide something of substance any time you are ready.

If I "seemed" to loose the plot to you, then one reason for that is because your beliefs are just way to strong for you to be open to what I have said and yet have to say. Until I share ALL I have to share, thus have been listened to fully, and then questioned and/or challenged, then you have absolutely no idea about what I am talking about. Nearly all people who say things that are relatively new, like the earth revolves around the sun are usually referred to something similar to as losing the plot. That is until they are fully listened to.

Everything I say, which is completely new or different from what you think and say, your response usually entails something similar to "Your wrong," but when I challenge you, you are completely unable substantiate your claim. To you, I am only wrong because my view is different than your view. Also, you have not even heard what I have to say yet but you have already decided that you know more and best.

For a topic about questioning everything it is surprising how there are very few questions, if any, asked before conclusions are made.

ken wrote: I can be free of bias and I am free of bias. If you can prove I am not free of bias, then prove it

I just did. You didn't notice.

surreptitious57 wrote:Watching a baby is not going to rid human beings of their biases. So that is not a valid example.

I NEVER said it would. If you read again I never said that, so that assumption is wrong.

surreptitious57 wrote:Also I never said anything about what I do and so did not project it on to everyone else.

You are right, you did not say anything about what you do, but you did not have to. I can see what you do already. As I have stated this already. You have projected what you do. What you do is within your writings so you did not have to say it explicitly.

surreptitious57 wrote: I just made a general point about subjective and emotional biases that human beings have.

If you are God or some super or above natural being who is able to talk for ALL human beings, then you have the right to. But why do you think you can tell what ALL human beings do? By the way if you just listened to what I am actually saying you will notice that I am not actually disagreeing with you in a sense. But you have to KNOW who/what human beings are and who/what I am first.

surreptitious57 wrote:Your proposed solution to this is purely hypothetical.

And just maybe my proposed solution may also be able to be proven as being correct. But until I say ALL of what I have to say, or I am questioned openly about the things that I have already said, then how much of my proposed solution i have expressed already might only be about 5-10%. So, no person can make claim to what I have yet not said.

If I, for example, said that the earth revolves the sun before that was known then most would say that it was wrong. Even though I would have had a lot more to say. By just saying, "The earth revolves around the sun", I might have only said about 5-10% of ALL of what I had to say before I could prove what I was saying was correct. Until ALL of what I have to say has been heard, then saying that I am wrong or that my proposed solution is purely hypothetical is a totally foolish thing to do. Why can I NOT just be heard fully first before conclusions are made?

surreptitious57 wrote: Your absolute faith in it does not automatically make it true.

Of course NOT. I NEVER said it did. But I write like that trying to provoke some kind of interest, inquisitiveness, and questioning. But all I seem to provoke is people jumping to conclusions, and then being accused of being wrong.

I have written with less "faith" previously, and then get accused of not having faith nor of not believing in what I write. There is a very fine line in expressing some thing as being just a view, which may be right or wrong, and knowing that it is true, right, and correct, but still remaining open to the fact that it may actually be or partly be false, wrong, and/or incorrect.

surreptitious57 wrote:It is of course wonderful in principle but less so in practice. I do however think that it is important to keep negative biases to a minimum though they will always exist in one form or another

Again you are putting what you actually do onto ALL others. By the way, you might not be wrong at all in what you are saying here in relation to human beings, and I might NOT be disagreeing with you on that point, but until I am given a chance to be heard fully I can not prove HOW you are actually right.

One reason WHY you can NOT seem to even be able to just look at HOW biases can be eliminated is the very reason or cause of WHY you can NOT be open. You, one human being, can only look at things from the brain. The brain can only see from the limited knowledge that has been fed into it already. Whereas I, the collective of ALL, looks at things from the truly open Mind. The Mind sees things from ALL perspectives. The Mind is also always open to ALL and Everything.