Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 am**

Insights into the true nature of reality can never be communicated with another.

Only through personal 'direct experience' does anything regarding the true nature of reality become known.

And is why the philosophising over many different branches of philosophy can be a futile, confusing, and often pointless exercise, between two minds.

When the observer becomes the observed. It is all ONE
There is no observer and no observed.

Then what remains behind? Nothing.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:56 am**

"What's this?"

"This is you."

"What?!"

"This is you and this is the sandwich."

"I don't like repeating myself, but what?!"

"Patience, patience. This is you, this is the sandwich, and this, don't you wanna know what this is?"

"No, I don't wanna know what the kettle is Pam!"

"Just wait, will ya!? This was here since Mr. Potter's b'day and this was not here yesterday and this is no longer there! See?"

"What?!"

"We have to call Aunt Seema. Right?"

"Er ... sigh! Yeah."

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2023 2:07 pm**

Forgive my naivete and lack of philosophical sophistication, Dontaskme - this is rather embarrassing, but - do you have any actual arguments to support your position?

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2023 5:11 pm**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 am Insights into the true nature of reality can never be communicated with another.

Only through personal 'direct experience' does anything regarding the true nature of reality become known.

And is why the philosophising over many different branches of philosophy can be a futile, confusing, and often pointless exercise, between two minds.

When the observer becomes the observed. It is all ONE
There is no observer and no observed.

Then what remains behind? Nothing.

I do think that verbal rational discourse is limited when you think about getting someone to change or learning to change, when it has to do with the big questions and paradigms. Someone might, when interacting with others this way, realize that they don't know as much as they thought. Or realize that there are contradictions in what they think they believe or do or think even at different times. I can see philosophy discussion setting you up to go and explore through direct experience and/or to debrief after experiences. You might be able to integrate what you experiences.

But changing minds, insights, breakthroughs...I think these tend to take long term smaller new experiences or short term big transformative interactions. Moving to new cultures, trauma, speaking to someone in a group you never have, altered states, visions, connecting to an animal for the first time, learning a new language, learning an art form, suffering stuff, meeting someone extremely terrible or special and spending significant time with them and so on.

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:37 pm**

if you get it in your sights and pull the trigger, no further communication is necessary

-Imp

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:52 pm**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 amInsights into the true nature of reality can never be communicated with another.

Only through personal 'direct experience' does anything regarding the true nature of reality become known.

And is why the philosophising over many different branches of philosophy can be a futile, confusing, and often pointless exercise, between two minds.

If I am not mistaken I think DAM is speaking about a way of knowing we refer to as “the intuitional”: knowing without the use of natural processes; acute insight.

To illustrate: there is a problem that exists in analytical knowledge (assembly of facts, or observations, or perspectives) when compared to intuited realization. We likely all know that, quite often, that ‘intuited sense’ is superior to a mere catalogue of ‘facts’, and a fact holder doesn’t really have much at all that we regard as important and significant. But what then is intuition? It is not something amenable to analysis.

But it is wrong to say that intuited insight is non-communicable. In a crowd, let’s say, some metaphor or allusion may be grasped by one out of a hundred — and 99 miss it. What happened then?

It is true though that should one arrive at an insight of the “true nature of reality” it will be a rather private realization.

It seems that what is alluded here is personal, subjective realization of a peculiar order. Buddhists, mystic Christians, Sufis, and other mystics present us with pictures of their realized experience, right?

It does seem true that philosophical chatter and tendentious jibber-jabber is rather futile.

But the conditions that produce incapability of sharing a common perspective, and agreeing on some or many levels, would need to be examined thoughtfully.

With intuited insight!

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:20 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:52 pm
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 amInsights into the true nature of reality can never be communicated with another.

Only through personal 'direct experience' does anything regarding the true nature of reality become known.

And is why the philosophising over many different branches of philosophy can be a futile, confusing, and often pointless exercise, between two minds.
If I am not mistaken I think DAM is speaking about a way of knowing we refer to as “the intuitional”: knowing without the use of natural processes; acute insight.

To illustrate: there is a problem that exists in analytical knowledge (assembly of facts, or observations, or perspectives) when compared to intuited realization. We likely all know that, quite often, that ‘intuited sense’ is superior to a mere catalogue of ‘facts’, and a fact holder doesn’t really have much at all that we regard as important and significant. But what then is intuition? It is not something amenable to analysis.

But it is wrong to say that intuited insight is non-communicable. In a crowd, let’s say, some metaphor or allusion may be grasped by one out of a hundred — and 99 miss it. What happened then?

It is true though that should one arrive at an insight of the “true nature of reality” it will be a rather private realization.

It seems that what is alluded here is personal, subjective realization of a peculiar order. Buddhists, mystic Christians, Sufis, and other mystics present us with pictures of their realized experience, right?

It does seem true that philosophical chatter and tendentious jibber-jabber is rather futile.

But the conditions that produce incapability of sharing a common perspective, and agreeing on some or many levels, would need to be examined thoughtfully.

With intuited insight!

Thank you for what appears to me to be a genuinely conscientious contribution to the forum. I commend you. (I really do.) Perhaps my initial impression of you was wrong or perhaps you and I simply spoke (perhaps even still speak) different "dialects" of philosophy. I suspect you are highly influenced by Buddhism, much more so than I am. I tend to toe the line more toward Christianity--perhaps too much so.

However, I think overall our minds are compatible in the most fundamental of senses. I believe everyone on this forum (save any computer-generated posts that might exist) probably shares a fundamental compatibility to the extent that if any two people were trapped together on a desert island or in a burning building, they would both be able (under the right--hopefully relatively common--circumstances) form a sense of cooperatively working toward improving their situation or attaining salvation or rescue as opposed to trying to destroy each other or "vote" each other off the island so to speak (what an absolutely HORRIBLE American "reality" show that was).

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:35 pm**

Mathematics is an insight someone figured out how to communicate.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:22 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 am Insights into the true nature of reality can never be communicated with another.

You are assuming there is an absolute fixed true nature of reality [nothingness or whatever] that only an individual can have individualized experience [insight] of.
If that is the case, the whole idea of contradictory, there is no way any human can have insight of it.
This is because 'insight' is a human dependent process, therefore can never be equivocated with an independent absolute fixed true nature of reality.
"dependent' is contradictory to 'independent', so your logic above is fallacious.

Only through personal 'direct experience' does anything regarding the true nature of reality become known.

Personal 'direct experience' is human based.
Whatever that 'true nature of reality' experienced it must be conditioned to a human being and can never be something fixed and absolute for all humans to experience.
In this case, we only have human experiences that are as unique as their fingerprints.
Thus we will have experiences from mental patients to normal human beings and no one can confirm theirs is the true reality.

And is why the philosophising over many different branches of philosophy can be a futile, confusing, and often pointless exercise, between two minds.

Because no experiences from individual humans are exactly the same [as unique as their finger prints] it is critical they philosophize via specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] to establish consensus on what is reality -i.e. human-based-FSK reality and never an absolute true nature of reality.
At present the most credible and reliable acceptance of what is reality is from the scientific -FSK as the standard for all other FSKs.

When the observer becomes the observed. It is all ONE
There is no observer and no observed.

This don't make sense at all.
Whatever is observed or experienced is always conditioned upon a FSK or a combination of FSKs.

It is nevertheless possible to detach whatever FSKs one is conditioned to via evolution or other means.
The easiest way to detach all existing FSKs one is attached to is to put the person into full coma where the person is unable to have any conscious experience at all.
The other ways is to put a person into partial coma where his experience is limited. In this case, the person experience 'nothing' except his own basic self.
Other sorts of partial detachments of certain FSKs can be done via drugs, hallucinogens, pain killers, etc.
It can also happened naturally via various reasons.

In religious and spiritual settings, practitioners are able to detach certain basic FSKs and thereby experience some degrees of 'nothingness' e.g. Buddhism.

Then what remains behind? Nothing.

Nothingness or emptiness [in mind] can result in degrees via the above approaches or events.
What is critical is one must apply the consciousness of nothingness in the right perspectives.

When one is standing on a railway track where there is an oncoming train, we do not stick to a state of 'nothingness' but rather shift to a paradigm of somethingness and jump off the 'something' rail track ASAP.

On the other hand when one is too attached or clinging to things and suffer therefrom we have to be mindful that there is 'nothing' i.e. no such absolute real thing, e.g. clinging to a soul within and knowing that mortality is inevitable.
In other cases, we must know when to let go where things clung to are actually 'spilled milk' [nothing, empty].

There is no 'nothing' that is absolute that we must cling on.
We take contexts into consideration to optimize one's well-being.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:35 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 am Insights into the true nature of reality can never be communicated with another.

Okay. Now is 'this' the ACTUAL 'true nature of reality', or just your own personal opinion?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 am Only through personal 'direct experience' does anything regarding the true nature of reality become known.

So are you saying here that one can KNOW the 'true nature of reality', but just can NOT communicate the 'true nature of reality' to "another"?

But, then again, there is NO "another" anyway, right?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 am And is why the philosophising over many different branches of philosophy can be a futile, confusing, and often pointless exercise, between two minds.

Oh, so there IS 'two minds' to the 'true nature of reality', now, right?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 am When the observer becomes the observed. It is all ONE
There is no observer and no observed.

Then what remains behind? Nothing.

So, 'it' is 'nothing', which is 'all' ONE, right?

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2023 7:29 am**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:52 pm
But it is wrong to say that intuited insight is non-communicable. In a crowd, let’s say, some metaphor or allusion may be grasped by one out of a hundred — and 99 miss it. What happened then?

It is true though that should one arrive at an insight of the “true nature of reality” it will be a rather private realization.

It seems that what is alluded here is personal, subjective realization of a peculiar order. Buddhists, mystic Christians, Sufis, and other mystics present us with pictures of their realized experience, right?

It does seem true that philosophical chatter and tendentious jibber-jabber is rather futile.

But the conditions that produce incapability of sharing a common perspective, and agreeing on some or many levels, would need to be examined thoughtfully.

With intuited insight!

Personal subjective insights into the nature of oneness, cannot be communicated to another in a manner that the other can know precisely, or to put more accurately, become an experience for the other, in the exact same identical way it is being communicated to them by the other.

We often say to one another when communicating something we have thought about... ''Do you know what I mean'' ?

However, no one's personal subjective direct experience into the nature of reality/existence/ oneness...can be communicated to another. This particular experience must be experienced directly individually, and even when that happens, the shared experiences may or may not match up identically with another. And there would be no way to line them up and measure how identical they are, simply because they are 'thought manifested', not physical images that can be seen, as if playing a game of snap with identical picture cards..

Personally, I am referring to what is an unconditional experience of oneness. So my OP has nothing to do whatsoever with your notion regarding the ''conditions that produce incapability of sharing a common perspective''

This is not about ''conditions'' this is about what is always this immediate unconditional freedom, that is the true and real nature of existence.

Unconditional oneness has no argument with itself.
Conditioned philosophizing is a rather pointless exercise...
...it is a mental game of Reductio ad absurdum teleological, pointless, meaningless discussions.

Reality is an infinite VOID of unknowing. The mind fills up this void in it's vain attempt to AVOID it. And is why the mind, aka humanity indulges in the game of philosophy.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2023 7:47 am**

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:35 pm Mathematics is an insight someone figured out how to communicate.

Math is concept, and concept know nothing of their reality.

In this conception, there is an apparent supposition arising out of thin air, that there is a 'someone' who knows what they are communicating with another ''someone''

In reality, no communication between two things ever took place, except in this conception, as an apparent knowing, in this immediate unknowing.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2023 8:13 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:22 am
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 am Insights into the true nature of reality can never be communicated with another.
You are assuming there is an absolute fixed true nature of reality [nothingness or whatever] that only an individual can have individualized experience [insight] of.
If that is the case, the whole idea of contradictory, there is no way any human can have insight of it.
This is because 'insight' is a human dependent process, therefore can never be equivocated with an independent absolute fixed true nature of reality.
"dependent' is contradictory to 'independent', so your logic above is fallacious.

Only through personal 'direct experience' does anything regarding the true nature of reality become known.
Personal 'direct experience' is human based.
Whatever that 'true nature of reality' experienced it must be conditioned to a human being and can never be something fixed and absolute for all humans to experience.
In this case, we only have human experiences that are as unique as their fingerprints.
Thus we will have experiences from mental patients to normal human beings and no one can confirm theirs is the true reality.

And is why the philosophising over many different branches of philosophy can be a futile, confusing, and often pointless exercise, between two minds.
Because no experiences from individual humans are exactly the same [as unique as their finger prints] it is critical they philosophize via specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] to establish consensus on what is reality -i.e. human-based-FSK reality and never an absolute true nature of reality.
At present the most credible and reliable acceptance of what is reality is from the scientific -FSK as the standard for all other FSKs.

When the observer becomes the observed. It is all ONE
There is no observer and no observed.
This don't make sense at all.
Whatever is observed or experienced is always conditioned upon a FSK or a combination of FSKs.

It is nevertheless possible to detach whatever FSKs one is conditioned to via evolution or other means.
The easiest way to detach all existing FSKs one is attached to is to put the person into full coma where the person is unable to have any conscious experience at all.
The other ways is to put a person into partial coma where his experience is limited. In this case, the person experience 'nothing' except his own basic self.
Other sorts of partial detachments of certain FSKs can be done via drugs, hallucinogens, pain killers, etc.
It can also happened naturally via various reasons.

In religious and spiritual settings, practitioners are able to detach certain basic FSKs and thereby experience some degrees of 'nothingness' e.g. Buddhism.

Then what remains behind? Nothing.
Nothingness or emptiness [in mind] can result in degrees via the above approaches or events.
What is critical is one must apply the consciousness of nothingness in the right perspectives.

When one is standing on a railway track where there is an oncoming train, we do not stick to a state of 'nothingness' but rather shift to a paradigm of somethingness and jump off the 'something' rail track ASAP.

On the other hand when one is too attached or clinging to things and suffer therefrom we have to be mindful that there is 'nothing' i.e. no such absolute real thing, e.g. clinging to a soul within and knowing that mortality is inevitable.
In other cases, we must know when to let go where things clung to are actually 'spilled milk' [nothing, empty].

There is no 'nothing' that is absolute that we must cling on.
We take contexts into consideration to optimize one's well-being.

In my humble personal subjective opinion, via my direct experience of what the sensation of sentient aliveness feels like, through what I understand to be my unique and never to be repeated lens of perception will be a one off copy of how I interpret the true nature of reality.
Here's my personal copy...
HERE, there is simply nothing apparently happening. Now, many other people may agree also, or they may not agree, that there is here, simply nothing apparently happening. But how that subjective experience is communicated will probably differ, is all I'm saying.

However which way this dynamic and very much alive nothingness appears to describe itself using words, it does apparently appear as though there is a 'someone' who is using words as a descriptive narrative of what's happening, and this too, will be apparently nothing happening...including this.

And you VA are welcome to your copy, of which I have no argument with, since this thread is dedicated to the uniqueness of every viewpoint into the nature of reality.

For me, every viewpoint is as valid as any other because for me personally, it's all the same nothingness appearing as apparent difference, expressed using the only tool available, (WORDS) and (the mind) from where words appear, and from which they are read and given meaning..in this conception...which in my opinion is nothing apparently happening.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2023 8:27 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:22 amWhen one is standing on a railway track where there is an oncoming train, we do not stick to a state of 'nothingness' but rather shift to a paradigm of somethingness and jump off the 'something' rail track ASAP.

First of all, there is simply no such thing as a ''someone'' who sticks to a state of nothingness. What's being pointed to here, is there is only 'nothingness', or nothing apparently happening.

The moving out of the way of the oncoming train either happens, or it doesn't happen, whatever happens, either way, that will be what happens, and so whether there is a moving away or a just staying put and being killed by the oncoming train...that will be what is happening, and nothing could have changed the outcome, or made the outcome any different to what happened in the immediate moment of the happening....every happening is apparently nothing happening, because nothing apparently happening is the true nature of what is always this immediate unconditional freedom to happen or not. There is absolutely nothing making what is happening, and absolutely nothing making what is happening unhappen.

.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2023 8:49 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:22 am
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:17 am Insights into the true nature of reality can never be communicated with another.
You are assuming there is an absolute fixed true nature of reality [nothingness or whatever] that only an individual can have individualized experience [insight] of.
If that is the case, the whole idea of contradictory, there is no way any human can have insight of it.
This is because 'insight' is a human dependent process, therefore can never be equivocated with an independent absolute fixed true nature of reality.
"dependent' is contradictory to 'independent', so your logic above is fallacious.

I don't think VA realizes that has, here, tried to do, exactly what DAM is talking about. He he tries to give an insight about the true nature or reality. He doesn't seem to realize that reality includes us and perception and things like what we can know and can't know. He doesn't seem to realize that he is talking, here, about what he thinks is true about reality.

He is telling DAM that what she assumes about reality is not correct. And they he explains what is correct.

VA conflates reality with ding an sich, here.

He also doesn't seem to realize that he is making a universal claim about all people. People are a part of reality. And he is saying what they can and cannot know.

And for some reason he keeps bringing up fixed all the while talking about things in a fixed way while saying it is not fixed.

And: I should have added to be clear. He is doing what he says one can't do.

Philosophy Now Forum

Insights can never be communicated.

Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.

Re: Insights can never be communicated.