Philosophy Now Forum

Don, are you aware that you haven't actuality formulated an answer to any of my requests for confirmation?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 2:00 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 1:10 pmYou seem to be trying to elaborate and extemporise on the all-too-simple theme that reality is unknowable, and that all my perception and in particular my perception of a universe of multitple individual diverse entities, including myself as one such, is an illusion.

Is that close?

Separation is the illusion, not reality itself which is a verb. Reality is unknowable in the sense it doesn't need to be known, it is without doubt or error this knowing...it's a (verb)

That seems to ignore what I said and so it fails to confirm or deny it.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 2:00 pmWe don't really know or come in contact with an object, called a mind, a body, or a world. All we know is the knowing of our experience.

That also seems to ignore what I said and fail to confirm or deny it.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 2:00 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 1:10 pmIt leaves my original question unanswered: whose consciousness is under this illusion?

The illusion that consciousness is an object called ''me''

That seems to ignore what I asked and so it fails to answer it.

If an object called ''me'' is the illusion you are focussed on here, what on earth do you mean by;
I know what I am talking about, I feel what I am talking about to be my direct experience, that may or may not be another persons experience.

What other person do you mean if you believe there is no "me"?

The illusion that consciousness is an object called ''me''

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 4:17 pmThat seems to ignore what I asked and so it fails to answer it.

If an object called ''me'' is the illusion you are focussed on here, what on earth do you mean by;
I know what I am talking about, I feel what I am talking about to be my direct experience, that may or may not be another persons experience.

What other person do you mean if you believe there is no "me"?

Listen carefully to what is being pointed to, listen ok...try to cognise and remember who you are ...

Talking is known, feeling is known, experience is known, every thing is known. The known cannot know. There is only Knowing. ( I ) is a verb, it is not an object known that cannot know.

In the Old Testament, in the Book of Isaiah, where Isaiah says (Isaiah speaking on behalf of God)

“I have called you by my name. You are mine.” I have called you by my name. I have planted my name in your mind. The name your mind gives to itself — that is the name ‘I’ — is the name of ‘me’. So the ‘me’ (God is saying) the ‘me’ in ‘you’ is in fact the ‘me’ in ‘me’. I have called you by ‘my’ name. That makes the ‘you’ of ’you’, ‘mine’ — or ‘me’.

Everybody’s experience is permeated by what they call ‘I’. Experience is limited and individual, but the ‘I’, the self that permeates all experience doesn’t share the limits of experience.

So Isaiah is saying that ‘I’ is God’s mind in our mind. It’s not even God’s mind in our mind. All there is to our mind is God’s mind, with a limit attached to it. That’s what seems to make it ‘me-the person’. But the ‘me’ of ‘me-the person’ is infinite consciousness.”

In other words: You are God, there is only God...which is just another way of saying you are ( Nothing and Everything )


_____

Take it or leave it, or believe what feels right to your I there. We all share the same I ...even though the beliefs of each I are very much not the same at all.

The above message is what the I here firmly believes, and what the I here firmly believes, is appearing in the form of words being read by the I there. And that's all that's happening.

The I is everywhere at once if you notice, and so as I write here, the I there reads what the I here has written.

.

Okay, I'll try again ...

You seem to be trying to elaborate and extemporise on the all-too-simple theme that reality is unknowable, and that all my perception and in particular my perception of a universe of multitple individual diverse entities, including myself as one such, is an illusion.

Is that close? Where is it different from your ideas?

We all share the same I ...even though the beliefs of each I are very much not the same at all.

In what sense can the one 'I' be individuated into "each I", all with different beliefs? How does that work?

illusion - false appearance or deceptive impression of reality

In what sense is it possible for experience itself to be false? By what standards of external verification could you judge the deceptiveness of your experience of self? Other people can't tell you whether your self is verified. You can't be wrong that you're having an experience of self. There is no sense in which self can be an illusion.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:44 am Okay, I'll try again ...

You seem to be trying to elaborate and extemporise on the all-too-simple theme that reality is unknowable, and that all my perception and in particular my perception of a universe of multitple individual diverse entities, including myself as one such, is an illusion.

The 'known' concept of self is the illusion. Not the actual self. The 'self' is without doubt or error, it's already self evident, it doesn't know, it is the knowing, it's a lone, all one, only appearing as the illusory many.

Self is just another way of describing this mysterious ( everything and nothing ) without beginning nor end, the first and the last.
So how can that which is eternally one be anything other than just itself, one without a second.
Self cannot know itself, it is the knowing, it doesn't need to know itself, as that would require two the knower and the known.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:44 amIs that close? Where is it different from your ideas?

I do not know what this is referring to.

We all share the same I ...even though the beliefs of each I are very much not the same at all.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:44 amIn what sense can the one 'I' be individuated into "each I", all with different beliefs? How does that work?

It works from the perspective of knowledge.

Knowledge is consciousness. So the consciousness here, which is just another word for I - believes in ideas that may or may not be recognised by the I there which is your consciousness. There's only ONE reader of knowledge, although knowledge itself does appear to arise to the one reader as being written by many authors, many authors appear, which is just another word for knowing consciousness. However, knowledge can only appear as the 'object' of knowing, and not as the actual knower, the actual knower is eternal, which is unknowable, only the temporal is known as and through the objective conceptual story. Eternal Self has no knowledge except what is artificially via conception imposed upon itself. That's how it works.

So, we have:

1) Knowledge is consciousness.

2) So the consciousness here
2.1) So the knowledge here

3) which is just another word for I
3.2.1) I

4) believes in ideas
4.3.2.1) I believe in ideas

5) that may or may not be recognised by the I there which is your consciousness.
5.3.2.1) that I may or may not recognise.

from 4.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.1:
I believe in ideas that I may or may not recognise.

If you don't know what's wrong with that there is no hope for you, babe!

6) That's how it works.
No. No it doesn't. Really!

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:43 am So, we have:

1) Knowledge is consciousness.

2) So the consciousness here
2.1) So the knowledge here

3) which is just another word for I
3.2.1) I

4) believes in ideas
4.3.2.1) I believe in ideas

5) that may or may not be recognised by the I there which is your consciousness.
5.3.2.1) that I may or may not recognise.

from 4.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.1:
I believe in ideas that I may or may not recognise.

If you don't know what's wrong with that there is no hope for you, babe!

Ok, but what-ever you are replying there in response to what I have said and see, is quite frankly none of my business. I have no recognition or understanding of what your reply is pointing to. I can only acknowledge and understand what is my own personal direct experience. I can share my experience of SELF on this forum, but I cannot make the reader understand, if what is being shared has not been their personal direct experience. We are talking about the SELF here.

Now, if you have any more questions or queries that you would like to discuss on this topic of SELF. I'm always open to engage...as long as it doesn't become overly complicated in an intellectual context, because in my personal vision, it's all very simple indeed.

And please do not call me babe. There's no need to get pedantic and frustrated. We are strangers on the internet, we are just one of an infinite number of waves in the ocean, strutting our stuff ...bye the way, this forum is just an additional hobby of mine, I do not take it seriously at all. I understand the concept of Self, and that's all I need to know, nothing else matters to me. I enjoy talking about a subject I am confident about talking about. If you do not believe what I am saying, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that, and it doesn't change a thing.



.

If you do not believe what I am saying, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that, and it doesn't change a thing.

I think that amounts to; "I am incapable of making sense on this or any other topic, and I don't care."
kthxbai!

Self is perspective over time. There's nothing particularly mysterious about it.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:28 am If you do not believe what I am saying, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that, and it doesn't change a thing.

I think that amounts to; "I am incapable of making sense on this or any other topic, and I don't care."
kthxbai!

Well if you have a better version of making sense of a reality, including our bodies and brains, are in consciousness, not consciousness in our bodies and brains. Then go for it.

Dude, just by not saying anything on the subject I am making more sense that you do. And no, I don't think I have a better version than just shutting the fuck up.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:17 pm Dude, just by not saying anything on the subject I am making more sense that you do. And no, I don't think I have a better version than just shutting the fuck up.

Free advice, save your breath. It's wasted on me.

Long seeking it through others,
I was far from reaching it.
Now I go by myself;
I meet it everywhere.
It is just I myself,
And I am not itself.
Understanding this way,
I can be as I am.

(Tung-shan Ling-chia)

waechter418 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:35 pm There are various interpretations of Self; for example: there is the Self of Ego, the Self called Soul, the Hindu Atman and a universal Self.
Whatever the theories – Self is the core and in a certain way the coordinate of every human being.
Possibly due to the difficulties of defining Self, the relationship with its beholder gets sometimes stressed – even so far, that latter doubts the presence of prior.
But Self is vital, as it knows the true nature and needs of its beholder and thus becomes particular important when turmoil and confusion threaten its physical & mental wellbeing.
There are many unification teachings, but most of them focus on a higher instead on a common Self, despite that we are selfish creatures and thus foremost interested in our own troubles, and who is more qualified to handle them but Self.

Personal opinion: The self is the essence of life or it could be said to be life in general, for the essence of life is the same across the board only differing in creatures due to structure and form, not the essence. There is a difference in consciousness but I believe that may be due to structure and form and the niches structure and form adapted for. Even when one considers personality as in identity formation, this does not affect essence at all; essence is singular its manifestations plural. The symbol of life lives upon life, the snake consuming its own tail; there is but one snake.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:35 am

The illusion that consciousness is an object called ''me''

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 4:17 pmThat seems to ignore what I asked and so it fails to answer it.

If an object called ''me'' is the illusion you are focussed on here, what on earth do you mean by;
I know what I am talking about, I feel what I am talking about to be my direct experience, that may or may not be another persons experience.

What other person do you mean if you believe there is no "me"?

Listen carefully to what is being pointed to, listen ok...try to cognise and remember who you are ...

Talking is known, feeling is known, experience is known, every thing is known. The known cannot know. There is only Knowing. ( I ) is a verb, it is not an object known that cannot know.

In the Old Testament, in the Book of Isaiah, where Isaiah says (Isaiah speaking on behalf of God)

“I have called you by my name. You are mine.” I have called you by my name. I have planted my name in your mind. The name your mind gives to itself — that is the name ‘I’ — is the name of ‘me’. So the ‘me’ (God is saying) the ‘me’ in ‘you’ is in fact the ‘me’ in ‘me’. I have called you by ‘my’ name. That makes the ‘you’ of ’you’, ‘mine’ — or ‘me’.

Everybody’s experience is permeated by what they call ‘I’. Experience is limited and individual, but the ‘I’, the self that permeates all experience doesn’t share the limits of experience.

So Isaiah is saying that ‘I’ is God’s mind in our mind. It’s not even God’s mind in our mind. All there is to our mind is God’s mind, with a limit attached to it. That’s what seems to make it ‘me-the person’. But the ‘me’ of ‘me-the person’ is infinite consciousness.”

In other words: You are God, there is only God...which is just another way of saying you are ( Nothing and Everything )


_____

Take it or leave it, or believe what feels right to your I there. We all share the same I ...even though the beliefs of each I are very much not the same at all.

The above message is what the I here firmly believes, and what the I here firmly believes, is appearing in the form of words being read by the I there. And that's all that's happening.

The I is everywhere at once if you notice, and so as I write here, the I there reads what the I here has written.

.

Do 'you' PURPOSE go out of 'your' way "dontaskme" to CONFLATE INTO CONFUSION what IS, ESSENTIALLY, VERY BASIC, VERY SIMPLE, and, REALLY, VERY EASY to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND?