Philosophy Now Forum

Might there NOT be a what or a who?

Might the apparent manifestation of all, be beyond human comprehension?

Might that be why humans can only imagine gods?

Can we know? Do we need to know?

Would "knowing"... change what we do?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:00 am Might there NOT be a what or a who?

We do not know, we can only question. And we can only question because we developed a capacity for language.
Prior to that we were dumb as stone age rocks, maybe a little smarter than, but dumb all the same.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:00 amMight the apparent manifestation of all, be beyond human comprehension?

Yes it is, but only in the sense we have the capacity to comprehend our nature and surroundings...prior to which we were dumb animals.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:00 amMight that be why humans can only imagine gods?

Yes, quite right, all we can do is imagine. Just like we've been doing all our lives by labeling the otherwise silent not-knowing.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:00 amCan we know? Do we need to know?

We cannot know.
Do we need to know? ...YES...humans are obsessed with wanting to know the origins of life and how it happened and why and such...etc

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:00 amWould "knowing"... change what we do?

We can NEVER know..all we can do is believe and have faith in what we only imagine or think we know.

Thanks for playing along Lacewing, I can always count on you. At least we both have in common a sense of humor, something that is terribly lacking on this forum...imho

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:36 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:00 amWould "knowing"... change what we do?

We can NEVER know..all we can do is believe and have faith in what we only imagine or think we know.

It appears that our design is rather essential and specific for our human experience. Being an Earth human naturally entails certain limitations and not-knowing. I'm not sure that supposedly knowing beyond that would really change anything for us. We are here... we have an opportunity to experience the immense potential of that. Such an experience might offer the most depth and fulfillment our human design can experience anyway -- very likely with so much more capability than we'll ever completely explore/realize.

We might think we need to transcend it? But why would truth/depth/potential only exist in one direction? (For example: outward and away/disconnected vs. within/throughout and embracing/connected?) What if we're trying to transcend/dismiss that which is the actual and magnificent potential/Universe available to us?

The idea of seeking beyond might actually establish and sustain ideas of separation and lack!

Perhaps there would be no reason to seek if we were to embrace and notice how much is already here all throughout ourselves and all else.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:36 am Thanks for playing along Lacewing, I can always count on you. At least we both have in common a sense of humor, something that is terribly lacking on this forum...imho

Thank you. To me... humor seems almost as natural and essential for life as breathing. So much is divinely funny and joyful! It feels like love.

Perhaps "Heaven and Hell" for humans are right here alongside each other, as if side-by-side prisms in a crystal. With so many reflections to choose from, our mission/option, should we choose to accept it, may be to learn and practice TUNING ourselves. Perhaps much of what many of us are doing is reporting back (from our perspectives) on the possibilities to choose from.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:41 pm

We might think we need to transcend it?

The immanence that is this already immediate living God/Nature/Beingness/Aliveness. . or whatever it is known as never transcends.

The 'we' that thinks it needs to transcend in order to reach this immediate immanence...is an appearance already couched within this immediate luminous immanence.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:41 pm But why would truth/depth/potential only exist in one direction? (For example: outward and away/disconnected vs. within/throughout and embracing/connected?) What if we're trying to transcend/dismiss that which is the actual and magnificent potential/Universe available to us?

The idea of seeking beyond might actually establish and sustain ideas of separation and lack!

Seeking what we already are is what is known as hide and seek, the play that oneness nonduality plays with itself...Non-dual - one -not two, only appearing to be two.

There's no lack or separation, as everything is already completely whole. Lack and separation is within the game of duality, the dream of separation, which is within the dreamer who is one.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:41 pm Thank you. To me... humor seems almost as natural and essential for life as breathing. So much is divinely funny and joyful! It feels like love.

Love could be another word for God, which is another word for everything and nothing, beingness, nature, aliveness.

It's all love.

We cannot know knowing, because we are the knowing. We can only be the knowing without knowing what this knowing is, or why, or where did it come from.

I don't really know anything, except that I AM....and all else is belief and faith, and trust in the I AM that I AM

Sometimes I wonder WHO would want this aliveness beingness...especially knowing what it knows and feeling what it feels, and seeing what it sees?

Who would want or need this...is the one and only question?

.

There is no basis to ask who or what created everything.
In fact it is a self defeating question.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:11 pm There is no basis to ask who or what created everything.
In fact it is a self defeating question.

And that is exactly what is being discussed here.

Why philosophise about anything? because that's what appears to happen.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:06 am Sometimes I wonder WHO would want this aliveness beingness...especially knowing what it knows and feeling what it feels, and seeing what it sees?

Who would want or need this...is the one and only question?

I think you may be asking a WHY question rather than a WHO question? Why would anything/anyone want anything... especially knowing, feeling, seeing as it/one does? (I don't think you really wonder about the "who"?)

The thoughts that come to mind for me (for "why") are:

Because...

> Experiencing is more interesting than nothingness
> Creativity has no bounds
> There is always more
> Infinite love makes sense and beauty of all

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:11 pm There is no basis to ask who or what created everything.
In fact it is a self defeating question.

And that is exactly what is being discussed here.

Why philosophise about anything? because that's what appears to happen.

We can at at all times philosophises and speculate upon things we can know.
The thread title is close to meaningless.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:53 pm
I think you may be asking a WHY question rather than a WHO question? Why would anything/anyone want anything... especially knowing, feeling, seeing as it/one does? (I don't think you really wonder about the "who"?)

What if the who was you. Would you want or need this?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:53 pmThe thoughts that come to mind for me (for "why") are:

Because...

> Experiencing is more interesting than nothingness

But if you were nothingness then you would never ever be aware that there was a something else to experience that would be more interesting. You wouldn't be missing out on what you have no awareness of.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:53 pm
> Infinite love makes sense and beauty of all

Do you believe Love exists? and do you think that Love could be just another word for God?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:49 pm
We can at at all times philosophises and speculate upon things we can know.
The thread title is close to meaningless.

Says you, the cynical.

It's a valid question.

You can know 2=2=4 by learning that. And you would not be able to know 2+2=4 if it was not already a fact. 2+2=4 is a fact whether you have learnt it or not.


It's not your knowledge, the knowledge is already available else you wouldn't know anything.

The question is...who knows?

It's a metaphorical philosophy, whether it's a meaningless philosophical question is irrelevant.

You take it for granted that you are the knower....but you do not know who is the knower...all that is known is the known...not the knower.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:05 pm Sometimes I wonder WHO would want this aliveness beingness...especially knowing what it knows and feeling what it feels, and seeing what it sees?

Would you want or need this?

Yes. I don't know about "need", necessarily -- but I have gratitude for the experience and opportunity to see what can be done/created.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:05 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:53 pm > Experiencing is more interesting than nothingness

But if you were nothingness then you would never ever be aware that there was a something else to experience that would be more interesting. You wouldn't be missing out on what you have no awareness of.

I thought we were asking a question of that which has awareness to ask and answer the question.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:05 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:53 pm > Infinite love makes sense and beauty of all

Do you believe Love exists? and do you think that Love could be just another word for God?

I don't think love is a thing that "exists" (so-to-speak) -- rather, it is something that can be uniquely experienced and felt. In addition to naturally feeling love for beings, nature, and life -- many times I have experienced being suddenly and inexplicably filled with such an immense surge of love for nothing in particular, that it feels like I shall surely burst.

I do not equate the words/ideas Love and God. Rather, I think all ideas and experiences are possible/accessible... and it seems that love (and other feelings) are powerful vibrations/drivers/forces within that vastly creative space of energy.

It is quite possible that: Our vibration creates our reality, regardless of all else; and if our reality feels like crap, it is our vibration that creates and sustains that.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:13 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:49 pm
We can at at all times philosophises and speculate upon things we can know.
The thread title is close to meaningless.

Says you, the cynical.

It's a valid question.

You can know 2=2=4 by learning that. And you would not be able to know 2+2=4 if it was not already a fact. 2+2=4 is a fact whether you have learnt it or not.


It's not your knowledge, the knowledge is already available else you wouldn't know anything.

The question is...who knows?

It's a metaphorical philosophy, whether it's a meaningless philosophical question is irrelevant.

You take it for granted that you are the knower....but you do not know who is the knower...all that is known is the known...not the knower.

Your example is not empirical.
THe question is empirical.
What we do know is that no one knows when or if the universe began, and no one will ever know if it had an origin. The idea that it was a "who" is beyond stupid.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:25 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:13 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:49 pm
We can at at all times philosophises and speculate upon things we can know.
The thread title is close to meaningless.

Says you, the cynical.

It's a valid question.

You can know 2=2=4 by learning that. And you would not be able to know 2+2=4 if it was not already a fact. 2+2=4 is a fact whether you have learnt it or not.


It's not your knowledge, the knowledge is already available else you wouldn't know anything.

The question is...who knows?

It's a metaphorical philosophy, whether it's a meaningless philosophical question is irrelevant.

You take it for granted that you are the knower....but you do not know who is the knower...all that is known is the known...not the knower.

Your example is not empirical.
THe question is empirical.
What we do know is that no one knows when or if the universe began, and no one will ever know if it had an origin. The idea that it was a "who" is beyond stupid.

The 'who' is still a valid question in the context of what the function of language dictates to us, we use it to be able to understand and learn things about ourselves. You do not have to get all pedantic over this.

Who are YOU? ...did you create yourself, or did langauge create you. And what is language, etc etc..

These are the questions hardly ever questioned, except in philosophy by philosophers ... the ones who want to know deeper rooted meanings, those who seek...perhaps.

But do continue to be padantic if that's what gives you a buzz.

If the thread is stupid or irrelevant then fine, no one is forcing you to accept it.