It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Aphorism
Why do you bother coming here? I'm sure there's a poor-sport board out there somewhere.
The only thing a mystic knows is that he had a mystical experience. That's it.
And oh yeah, playground insults do not make me wrong.
It seems that you don't actually know what the word mystic refers to. A 'mystic' will happily admit that he/she knows nothing.
originally posted by: Aphorism
Would a mystic know what the word actually refers to after happily admitting that he/she knows nothing?
If one refuses to know, one refuses to participate. Believing one knows, and denying one knows, is the same thing—arriving at a conclusion, confirming, calculating, deducing, inferring, gathering, judging and valuing—knowing.
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: scratchmane
I've been pondering what you mean by his for the last couple of days, and I must say I am unable to understand what you mean when you say it is a form of superstition. I would appreciate if you could clarify this for me.
Focusing on a set of words, for instance "I am", is just that, focusing on a set of words. The words themselves inflict no change upon anything unless it has supernatural powers. Giving supernatural powers to words is superstition.
Why would words not inflict any changes? Isn't the fact that we are using words here, inflict change upon our consciousness?
originally posted by: Aphorism
Focusing on "I am" is giving power to the words, supplying them with a certain meaning, where there is no such thing in the words themselves.
Is it possible for you to see beyond words?
What do you think the words 'I am' mean?
What do you know for certain? Is it possible for you to say that you are not? Can you state that you do not exist?
When one says 'I am' then it is true but what one is can be mistaken for something one is not.
originally posted by: Aphorism
I am is an incomplete sentence. I am...what? This I know for certain.
You are but what you are....... is uncertain. One may label oneself as many things, like a husband or wife, a doctor or a mechanic but prior to any label you are.
The sentence 'I am' is not incomplete - it is just that you 'think' you are some thing.
Prior to any concept you are.
The 'thing' saying the phrase isn't the Am the I is referring to.
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Visitor2012
The 'thing' saying the phrase isn't the Am the I is referring to.
Then nothing says the phrase, nothing is referred to, and the world is silent.
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Visitor2012
The 'thing' saying the phrase isn't the Am the I is referring to.
Then nothing says the phrase, nothing is referred to, and the world is silent.
Indeed, something IS being referred to, and pointed to. A being is either aware of it, or they aren't. Knowledge is not necessary to know this, nor is spiritual or religious understanding. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything being spoken in this thread, or on this entire board for that matter.
It is being referred to by you perhaps. Yet what you are referring to is conveniently left out. And why is that? Could it be that you simply do not know what you are referring to? What is necessary to know this is grammar, for which the clause "I am", lacks.
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Visitor2012
"I am" begins to not make sense on realization of another fact, and is certain only to those who are capable of a clearer understanding not entirely dependent on religious sophistry, namely, that it is meaningless.
originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Visitor2012
Yet it's totally shrouded in philosophy.....