Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:14 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:10 am They would define what it was and what it did and also maybe why
But if it was entirely meaningless there would be nothing to study

Who is 'they'? You are a metaphysician. I am a metaphysician.

Lets discuss the metaphysics of a frompulteft.

I don't know how to define something I don't know anything about.

If you do, then lead the way.

You are still just playing with words here....aka nothing.

There is nothing to understand or know.

It's normal, so don't worry about it.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:19 am You are still just playing with words here....aka nothing.

There is nothing to understand or know.

It's normal, so don't worry about it.

I know that. Why are you telling me this?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:27 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:19 am You are still just playing with words here....aka nothing.

There is nothing to understand or know.

It's normal, so don't worry about it.

I know that. Why are you telling me this?

Only you would know the answer to that question.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:37 am Only you would know the answer to that question.

I can't possibly know the answer to "Why are you telling me this?"

That information lives in your head.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:41 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:37 am Only you would know the answer to that question.

I can't possibly know the answer to "Why are you telling me this?"

That information lives in your head.

Exactly, you can only know what you know. So asking another a question is wanting to know something that appears to be outside of your own knowing arena, and so would be pointless.

Seeking knowledge in another is pointless.

That's why describing oneness in words requires another that only exists as an idea in your own head.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:47 am Exactly, you can only know what you know.

Not true. I can know what you know also. If you tell me.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:02 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:47 am Exactly, you can only know what you know.

Not true. I can know what you know also. If you tell me.

That's right, that's what i've already said earlier, that which is not known can and will eventually become known.

But that which is unknowable can never be known.
For there is no knower separate from the known, and that which is known know nothing.

.

Skepdick wrote:
Lets discuss the metaphysics of a frompulteft ?

An imaginary word without definition that has no relevance to anything that either exists physically or conceptually
And so from a metaphysical perspective [ either definition ] it is entirely irrelevant until it does acquire a definition

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:54 pm An imaginary word without definition that has no relevance to anything that either exists physically or conceptually
And so from a metaphysical perspective [ either definition ] it is entirely irrelevant until it does acquire a definition

So the imaginary word 'frompulteft' is is not conceptual? A word without definition or relevance to anything whatsoever is not a concept?

How then did I come up with that word, if not through conceptualisation?

Weird place we have found ourselves in. We are actually discussing a meaningless term. Apparently there's a lot to be said about meaninglessness.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:57 pm
Weird place we have found ourselves in. We are actually discussing a meaningless term. Apparently there's a lot to be said about meaninglessness.

What can the mind do with the concept of meaningless?

Meaning is the illusion of a meaningless universe.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of oneness (unknown) appearing as a duality (known)

This unknown knowing.

Skepdick wrote:
So the imaginary word frompulteft is not conceptual ? A word without definition or relevance to anything whatsoever is not a concept ?

How then did I come up with that word if not through conceptualisation ?

We are actually discussing a meaningless term . Apparently there is a lot to be said about meaninglessness

Not conceptual as in no actual relevance to anything conceptual that exists within philosophy
You came up with that word totally spontaneously with no deep thinking attached to it at all
So there is very little to be said about it and I have no reason to waste energy on it anymore

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:02 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:47 am Exactly, you can only know what you know.

Not true. I can know what you know also. If you tell me.

Only the known can be known.

You there think you now know what you didn't know before now that I here have told you there what I know.
All this does is prove only the known can be known.

The knower of the known cannot be known because the knower is inseparable from the known which knows nothing.

To claim I know something is known. You are that knowing. You are the knowing that cannot be known because KNOWER AND KNOWN IS ONE in the same instantaneous now.

Putting the NOW into words describes nothing of the now, because any description has already moved into the past, it's dead, it's nothing.

There is no knowledge of the instantaneous NOW because knowledge is not required in order to BE this NOW ...KNOWLEDGE therefore only informs the illusory nature of reality. Knowledge on demand via the memory is what gives birth to the illusory continuity of a knowing entity known as you.

In reality there is no you except what is in the past tense as a dead memory, appearing NOW within this unknowing realtime of the eternal NOW

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:50 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:39 am
The I does not experience oneness.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:08 pm That is I that experiences everything.

That I do not experience ANYTHING ...as it's a ''thought''
The ''I thought'' ''IS'' the experience everything and nothing is experiencing.

I don't agree. There is an I who experiences and causes. I have an argument for that.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:50 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:39 am The 'thought' is an appearance of oneness that you already are prior to the 'thought' which is not what oneness is.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:08 pm Do you mind to elaborate?

You do not have to think yourself into being to be...there is only being. And being is always prior to any thought appearing in it.
Thought needs being to be known conceptually, but BEING does not need 'thought' to be.

Pure Being is primary and nondual. Whereas ''thought'' is the illusory dualistic aspect of pure thoughtless being..

.

So you believe in being?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 4:33 pm I don't agree. There is an I who experiences and causes. I have an argument for that.

It's ok to disagree, as oneness has no argument with itself. Any apparent arguments are all one sided anyway.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:08 pm


So you believe in being?

It's self evident, but it's not what thought thinks it is.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:45 pm Not conceptual as in no actual relevance to anything conceptual that exists within philosophy

Really, and where does this "Philosophy" thing exist exactly?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:45 pm You came up with that word totally spontaneously with no deep thinking attached to it at all

Obviously there is thinking attached to it - I thought it up!

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:45 pm So there is very little to be said about it and I have no reason to waste energy on it anymore

it seems to me then, you can't say very much about it if you don't know anything about it.