Being Aware and "Knowing"

Here is a question i have.

By being aware of something(i mean being able to perceive whatever it is), lets just say a toaster, by being aware of this toaster, and having the ability to remember the experience, does that not imply we already know what this toaster is when we become aware of it? Can we not become aware of things that we don't know? I know, i have seen what the bleep.

Lets take an atom for example, when we experienced the atom, did that imply that we had full knowledge of the atom upon experiencing it? So this would mean that we already have full knowledge of everything we can perceive.

My next question,

If being able to perceive something relies on our knowledge or understanding of what it could be that we are aware of, how do we actually become aware of something else?

Last question...

Does this require us to be "shown" what something is in order to become aware, or know what it is?

In this case, would it be our "higher self" doing the showing? Would this be why we need to get in touch of the higher self, to say, "Hey i am ready to be shown lets do this now" , and yourself says, "Ok, here i come lower self". The higherself would then be completing a creation process whereas he has co-created another being into an individual expressing themselves through an infinite perspective. Hmmm...

Conclusion....

So basically the higher self is me creating myself into another awareness.


Any insights?

P.S. - Thanks for allowing me to work this one out on this thread. The evolution of thought i guess. It is all in the questions!

More to add -

So basically the higher self is me creating myself into another awareness.

This statement i have just developed... it is really resonating with me right now.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by onequestion]

Originally posted by onequestion
Here is a question i have.

By being aware of something(i mean being able to perceive whatever it is), lets just say a toaster, by being aware of this toaster, and having the ability to remember the experience, does that not imply we already know what this toaster is when we become aware of it? Can we not become aware of things that we don't know? I know, i have seen what the bleep.

Lets take an atom for example, when we experienced the atom, did that imply that we had full knowledge of the atom upon experiencing it? So this would mean that we already have full knowledge of everything we can perceive.

My next question,

If being able to perceive something relies on our knowledge or understanding of what it could be that we are aware of, how do we actually become aware of something else?

Last question...

Does this require us to be "shown" what something is in order to become aware, or know what it is?

In this case, would it be our "higher self" doing the showing? Would this be why we need to get in touch of the higher self, to say, "Hey i am ready to be shown lets do this now" , and yourself says, "Ok, here i come lower self". The higherself would then be completing a creation process whereas he has co-created another being into an individual expressing themselves through an infinite perspective. Hmmm...

Conclusion....

So basically the higher self is me creating myself into another awareness.


Any insights?

P.S. - Thanks for allowing me to work this one out on this thread. The evolution of thought i guess. It is all in the questions!

More to add -

So basically the higher self is me creating myself into another awareness.

This statement i have just developed... it is really resonating with me right now.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by onequestion]

I'm starting to feel that when you "remember what you are seeing" your forgetting what your looking at.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by hautmess]

reply to post by hautmess


I am not sure what you mean. I could be sure but i am not sure. Please explain further just so i don't feel like i am unsure.

reply to post by hautmess


it is very deep what you know, i agree reality is all one free life present
thank you for reminding it

reply to post by imans


How can you be in the present without actually being aware of it? Wouldn't you then have to become aware of your presence in the present?

Are you presently aware of your presence, or have you just stopped thinking about the past and future? Does the presence find balance in the past and future? Did you become aware of the past and future before you became aware of the present?

I am starting to think this whole idea of being present in your presence is nonsense.

I can think about my future while being completely aware of my present. At the same time i can remain happy about both. Isn't that an infinite perspective, one where time is dissolved into one.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by onequestion]

reply to post by onequestion


lmao

can I have some of what ur smoking ???

seems a pity to waste all that knowledge
in a ziplock baggie to ones self

reply to post by boondock-saint


Knowledge is just an idea. How can you waste an idea to yourself?

Add -

Hah. i get it. lol, funny. yeah sure you can have some. Yeah i was just in that mindframe ya know lol.



[edit on 19-5-2010 by onequestion]

reply to post by onequestion


when you are normal one, you are to yourself present from being that constant move, you think you want you smile you reject you agree all alone, this is very sane normal one, i am caricaturizing the fact of existing one but everyone almost is like it, you are always one to yourself there the same present of its move alone constant in you

now the point of the world is tht reality between you as one and that objective life infront of you as whole one too, when you understand how reality is the perspective of true one, from your perspective one to whole one as true real, then you become a living present
but also that you who move constant as you become more clear the free one less confused with objective reality of himself living, so being the sense of freedom truth living more clearly

and here where you would know to not think about things unless for yourself reality one life with objective life present
capishi?

reply to post by imans


there is no futur it is always the present, there is no futur unless there is present and then while there is present it would always be present moves more generating freedom means moves from knowing the one truth so becoming more clearly ones free liivng

it is the process of move that is a conception of future from its fact as existing now always for the better of what is infront as better, and for better to be from better free too the creme living free from

the only reason talking about futur and past without present is to justify evil times that are meant to be associated to past and forget what is meant to throw away forever
but everything is always present that is why there is this fact of wholeness living, when you understand something you must verify it on what you always are present as, things are forever because absolutely physically too

but of course it is the idea and not true, since evil is effectively the source free of life and existence realities

now where that idea come from surely from where that absurdity of evil come from, maybe void and beyond would become free living ones to put those gods in hells lol

but awareness of one truth is already a free one living for sure and that is why it has rights absolutely that whatever sources must respect and if they dont it should be their problem then

this is actually the only issue i suffer from, how evil is the present living forever and truth life is mocked and abused endlessly how right is down and not up and how lies are powerful sources of all beyond, gods live of being liars

things are always present because the base as one truth result absolutely is always present as its sources like void life and beyond freedom is always present sources

i completely understand where your'e coming from, i too go deep into thought about such matters, if more people think this way and arent instantly discredited, there may still be hope. perhaps.peace

reply to post by onequestion


When something happens (causation) it (the event) emerges as a fact within the contextual environment that hosted the event. That fact contains an arrangement of informational units that are specifically aligned to represent the fact of what happened. This fact exists in context with all other facts that exist within the shared environment, and since causation establishes a before and after, the facts align as an orderly continuum that trails out behind the immediate that presents as a leading edge. This continuum is unchanging and permanent within the confines of the environment.

When we see something that we've never seen before, that something has already become established within the contextual environment that we share with it, through its contextual association with all else having been confirmed as fact within the informational continuum, and available for intellectual association when the moment presents itself. It's only through cognitive dissonace that we can possibly be incapable of seeing whatever it is (with cognitive dissonce a failure of our own capacity for objective perception, due to any of a host of reasons that have nothing to do with natural information exchange within a given environment).

The bottomline is that once the physical existence of an established anything is set within the contextual environment as fact, that fact is integral to the overall context of the environment itself. As a fellow integral part of the context, your intellect is pre-prepared to perceive what it is that shares contextual foundation (to a certain extent that clearly includes a shared basis of corporeal matter) within the environmental confines that include you and whatever it is that has just become new and novel for you.

This is how and why you are able to perceive that which you could not have expected. This is a fairly bare-bones layout of the process, but I think it serves to introduce the nature of how this sort of information exchange operates.


[edit on 19-5-2010 by NorEaster]

You can be something, but that doesn't mean you will understand it.

I'm getting kind of tired of these topics that are just rambles. I know. I do it too. I'm going to stop though, because it's really, REALLY annoying.
Clearly no investigative research was done into the subject matter at hand, seeing as the OP makes rather large jumps in logic to get to his 'next question'.

Lets take an atom for example, when we experienced the atom, did that imply that we had full knowledge of the atom upon experiencing it? So this would mean that we already have full knowledge of everything we can perceive.

First of all; How do you experience an atom? With a microscope? That is 'observing' an atom, but how do you 'experience' an atom? Most everything 'cept for empty space is made out of atoms, so yes, we have been 'experiencing' atoms for... as long as we can trace back. That doesn't however, mean that we had to know what they are to experience it. Things happen in reality that we can't comprehend the 'whys' or the 'hows'. Does that mean that these processes aren't really happening, even though we're clearly experiencing them? That was, to me, the first warning sign of a thought gone astray. Especially the bolded statement. That was an amazing feat of logic-jumping - if it were a sport, OP would be gold medallist.

Seriously, OP. You should purchase my Think-A-Little posting kit. 5.99 + s&h

[edit on 19-5-2010 by LususNaturae]

reply to post by onequestion


The ability to perceive something is due to Consciosness, we are that. That is what we are in source, the Energy, the Many Infinite Rays, and this is primary. Light = consciousness/life/soul/intellect/awareness. We are the perceivers in this school/universe.
This is endless progression, and once we get past the divisions into Love and Unity, its in good company with a Family we appreciate.

reply to post by LususNaturae

I'm getting kind of tired of these topics that are just rambles. I know. I do it too. I'm going to stop though, because it's really, REALLY annoying. Clearly no investigative research was done into the subject matter at hand, seeing as the OP makes rather large jumps in logic to get to his 'next question'.

Can i ask you how you research your philosophical ideas without reflecting them off of another person? Don't give me a google answer. I was researching an idea i had once, and ATS is the website i got my answer from. What makes you think that would change? I didn't force you to read this thread.

First of all; How do you experience an atom? With a microscope? That is 'observing' an atom, but how do you 'experience' an atom?

I would consider observation a form of experience.

That doesn't however, mean that we had to know what they are to experience it.

Mybe you are right. Do you have any more information you care to share relating to this subject, in a positive way?

Seriously, OP. You should purchase my Think-A-Little posting kit. 5.99 + s&h

Seriously, you should allow people to express themselves freely. Noone is making you do anything, including finding anything annoying. You find it annoying.

I would also like to say that some people ENJOY helping other people work through ideas, and experiences. I am sure a lot of those people are here on ATS.

reply to post by ItsAgentScully


Can you help me understand your definition of be(ing), and understand(ing)?

Just curious...

Thanks to everyone else for their positive input. I really enjoy hearing different philosophical ideas.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by onequestion]

Perception and awareness sometimes can be bias concepts. Convoluted by a persons wants and needs instead of what is actually there, or what has actually happened. Sometimes it is hard for a person to sort through the bias bull to see what is actually there, to get to the true fact of the matter. Take for instance past life experience, does a six year old boy have a spirit of a WWII soldier in him and remember how they died? Well I could not tell you, and it is a little hard for me to call a six year old biased, unless he is made that way by his/her parents. However from my perspective I must see it in my state of mind if that makes sense before I can comprehend it. Then again I am fully aware that I biased to my point of view. Sometimes I think there are things in this life not meant for comprehension.

One more thing I shall quote Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason something we should all remember, "I have always strenuously supported the right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right makes a slave to himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."

reply to post by Unity_99


So are you saying that by becoming aware of our infinite nature, we become the source again? So basically i understand it this way...

We express our individual self within ourselves, inside a multiverse of infinite individual selves at one with the source? Lets call the source, god/infinite creator/jesus/nirvana/buddha/light/consciousness just to be safe.

I typed up a whole group of sentences before but i lost them blah.

One more thing I shall quote Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason something we should all remember, "I have always strenuously supported the right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right makes a slave to himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."

I like it. I like it a lot.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by onequestion]

Originally posted by onequestion

Can i ask you how you research your philosophical ideas without reflecting them off of another person? Don't give me a google answer. I was researching an idea i had once, and ATS is the website i got my answer from. What makes you think that would change? I didn't force you to read this thread.

Yeah. You do research regarding epistemology, and questions like, what is reality? Why can we not be sure that reality is really real and not just a construct of our imagination? Go to the library. There's a lot of good books there that will enlighten you.

First of all; How do you experience an atom? With a microscope? That is 'observing' an atom, but how do you 'experience' an atom?

I would consider observation a form of experience.

Okay. So you just admitted to quite a significant flaw in your 'theory'. Without a microscope, you are then implying, that it is quite impossible to experience an atom. Right? So we are dependent on the microscope to know an atom. So, according to your 'theory' atoms didn't exist until microscopes came about. This is, as you can see, absurd.

Mybe you are right. Do you have any more information you care to share relating to this subject, in a positive way?

Maybe I AM right. And I just shared the information relating to the subject.
I was simply discussing the matter. That you took it personally is not a fault of mine, but a fault of yours.

Seriously, OP. You should purchase my Think-A-Little posting kit. 5.99 + s&h

Seriously, you should allow people to express themselves freely. Noone is making you do anything, including finding anything annoying. You find it annoying.

I would also like to say that some people ENJOY helping other people work through ideas, and experiences. I am sure a lot of those people are here on ATS.

to be honest, I thought that little bit about think-a-little posting kit was hilarious. Not my fault you have no sense of humour. And, as far as I can see, I have done nothing that would not allow you to express yourself freely. I was trying to help you. You don't want help. You want to be stuck in your own little reality of higher selfs and lower selfs and quite frankly, the ridiculous conversations that must go on between lower and higher selfs. I WAS trying to help you sift through your ideas. But, like I said, you don't WANT help. You just want re-affirmation that your 'theory' is a good one. And, I truly am sorry for that.

My Higher-Self must be crying right now,
LususNaturae