Mystics. Take my word for it.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Visitor2012


If you cannot prove even those very basic things beyond a shadow of a doubt.
How can you prove anything else?

Sure, you could toss the questions out as nonsense and so in your view avoid them.
But you'll be deluding yourself.

I see. Well I've never tried to prove anything to anyone. Really no reason to and proving something to myself would be impossible because there's no self to prove to.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but so far I think we are in agreement...I think.....

a reply to: Visitor2012

It was a general you.
Wasn't specifically meaning you.

But basically, what I am getting at could be summed up by a few lines of lyrics from a song.
"You know where it is.
Yea, well usually it depends on where you start."

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

In the context of what I said, how is this anything but a silly question?

You've heard of the Socratic paradox. If you know that we know nothing, you are speaking a paradox. If you simply believe that we know nothing, then someone can believe the exact opposite. In other words, you are making knowledge superfluous through mere rhetorical means. That is what is silly.

Do you believe or know copper conducts electricity? Do you believe or know you are reading my words?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

In the context of what I said, how is this anything but a silly question?

You've heard of the Socratic paradox. If you know that we know nothing, you are speaking a paradox.

Paradox is not necessarily something to be solved or avoided. It could be a dancefloor.

"The words of truth are always paradoxical." - Lao Tzu

a reply to: Aphorism

Obviously.
A lot of quibbling about a quote.
And if you want to get technical, it's elaborated upon.
Which offers damn good advice that has been taken.
If not by some.
Despite, well, a lot.

The Socratic axiom "I know nothing" means we should never be so conceited as to believe that our perception IS reality.
"I know nothing" means admitting we are guessing.
And it is by that admission we remain teachable.

Oh, and, considering what I have said before.
Those last questions are rather silly.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I'm not sure it is so obvious. You mentioned earlier "Believing is what humans do. Not knowing". I don't think that is the case.

Knowing is a human activity. To say we do not know is false. Furthermore, "I know nothing" is false. No one can know nothing.

Dogmatism is a different subject altogether.

a reply to: Aphorism

The obviously was directed towards your first question.

What we call "knowing" is nothing more than belief, just you have to "justify" a belief to classify it as something you know.
Or not, people do it all the time or just accept not so great justification.

People KNEW the world was flat.
Imagine that, it wasn't.
Etc.
Etc.
On throughout history.
It's a process
Thinking you know, for sure, stalls said process.
Thus the problem with Biblical Literalists.

But also, I am wondering, why are you avoiding the further explanation/context of the quote?
His claim, or Plato's, isn't that he knows completely nothing.
Just one thing, that he knows that he knows nothing.
Words modify each other you know.
As does context.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

It’s not even a quote. It is a paraphrase. It is not an axiom; it is simply a common platitude.

What we call knowing has been what we always called it. The degree to which we can know is dependent on observation and available information. It is placing truth values. It is the extent to which we are aware of something. The idea of absolute certainty, or absolute truth, is a theistic one, one that holds only some omniscient mind can know with 100% certainty, and thus taking knowledge out of the hands of the only beings that can create knowledge. There is no such thing as absolute truth, so of course, there is no way we can know it.

And we cannot know nothing, just like we cannot know everything. It is not possible and a contradiction in terms. If one claims he knows nothing, then he is claiming that nothing is something he knows, which I can guess with enough evidence and information, that he doesn't. Knowing nothing, and thus explaining nothing, is as about as fruitful as it sounds.

a reply to: Aphorism

The idea of absolute certainty, or absolute truth, is a theistic one, one that holds only some omniscient mind can know with 100% certainty, and thus taking knowledge out of the hands of the only beings that can create knowledge.

Um.
No.
I think you're confusing the concept of omniscience with certainty here.
Absolutely certainty is not, nor has ever been, believed to be something exclusively granted by the "god(s)".
Nice, albeit unrealistic, anti-theistic rant however though.
You managed to sound exactly like how I am used to mystics sounding like.

There is no such thing as absolute truth, so of course, there is no way we can know it.

The idea of which comes from the same source as the paraphrase as you correctly put it.
Glad to see you're finally coming around.
Too bad you cannot admit it.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Um.
No.
I think you're confusing the concept of omniscience with certainty here.
Absolutely certainty is not, nor has ever been, believed to be something exclusively granted by the "god(s)".
Nice, albeit unrealistic, anti-theistic rant however though.
You managed to sound exactly like how I am used to mystics sounding like.

I think you are confusing speaking with reading. I "sound" like nothing, and what you "hear" is merely your own voice in your head.

You're saying with certainty, conviction and knowledge, that certainty, conviction or knowledge, is impossible.

Here's what "know" means:

know |nō|
verb (past knew |n(y)o͞o| ; past participle known |nōn| )
1 [ with clause ] be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information: most people know that CFCs can damage the ozone layer | I know what I'm doing.
• [ with obj. ] have knowledge or information concerning: I would write to him if I knew his address | [ no obj. ] : I know of one local who shot himself.
• be absolutely certain or sure about something: I just knew it was something I wanted to do | [ with obj. ] : I knew it!
2 [ with obj. ] have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with: he knew and respected Laura.
• have a good command of (a subject or language).
• recognize (someone or something): Isabel couldn't hear the words clearly, but she knew the voice.
• be familiar or acquainted with (something): a little restaurant she knew near Times Square.
• have personal experience of (an emotion or situation): a man who had known better times.
• (usu. be known as) regard or perceive as having a specified characteristic: he is also known as an amateur painter.
• (usu. be known as) give (someone or something) a particular name or title: the doctor was universally known as “Hubert.”
• (know someone/something from) be able to distinguish one person or thing from (another): you are convinced you know your own baby from any other in the world.
3 [ with obj. ] archaic have sexual intercourse with (someone).[a Hebraism that has passed into modern languages; compare with German erkennen,French connaître .]

Do you still hold humans do none of these? And do you believe that the action "knowing", of which humans are its only agents in the entire universe, is impossible?

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as absolute anything, whether it be certainty or truth. Nothing can be absolutely certain, because absolute certitude presupposes that someone can have access to a universal text of absolutely true propositions, of which there is no such thing (yes they call that omniscience). Imagining that there is something called absolute certainty, or absolute truth is superstition, and invented for no reason beyond sophistry, which removes certitude out of the reach of knowledge, and driving a non-existent wedge between thinking and reality. Humans can only be humanly certain. This is how human's perform the act of knowing.

Saying humans do not know implies that something else can. Once again, superstition based on no evidence.

Glad to see you're finally coming around.
Too bad you cannot admit it.

Believing is what humans do.
Not knowing.

a reply to: Aphorism

I think you are confusing speaking with reading. I "sound" like nothing, and what you "hear" is merely your own voice in your head.

You know what a figure of speech is right?
Either way.
What I meant by "sound" is the confident declaration of supposed "facts" without any supporting information.
Which it is my experience many so called mystics seemingly love to do.
Not actual sound.
Seems rather silly to me to think I meant sound anyway......

You're saying with certainty, conviction and knowledge, that certainty, conviction or knowledge, is impossible.

More actually, I'm just repeating the words of minds greater than I.
Minds, I might add, whose words help greatly to shape the intellectual landscape as it is today.

However much it galls us in our incessant need to feel like we "know".
Retrospect and/or history shows us just how foolish we really are.
You're arguing against both.
On what grounds really?
All you've really had thus far is bare assertion.
Oh and semantic argument.....

Here's what "know" means:

That's nice dear.
I was using Plato's definition.

Which is a quite bit more realistic.

Do you still hold humans do none of these? And do you believe that the action "knowing", of which humans are its only agents in the entire universe, is impossible?

Ooooooo.
Do I get a sermon soon?
I hope I do!


Again I point out, the history of mankind pretending he "knows" anything has been the history of his folly.
Which is good as a learning experience don't get me wrong.
But we keep getting to a point and then deciding that point is it.
Which is counterproductive and silly.

Saying humans do not know implies that something else can. Once again, superstition based on no evidence.

Uh.
No it doesn't.
If I say no one has a Purple Crumple Horn Snorkak.
It in no way implies that someone does.
Just that I do not.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You deny a dictionary definition of "know"? So we are speaking about entirely different words here. What word are you actually speaking about then?

I suppose clarity isn't your fortay. At least it "sounds" that way to me.

That's nice dear.
I was using Plato's definition.

Which is a quite bit more realistic.

I'd love to hear Plato's definition of know, if you wouldn't mind sharing.

However much it galls us in our incessant need to feel like we "know".
Retrospect and/or history shows us just how foolish we really are.
You're arguing against both.

Surely you can show me where I've argued against both these? I seem to have forget what I've said. But now you're using "know" in quotations. Is this Plato's "know"?

Uh.
No it doesn't.
If I say no one has a Purple Crumple Horn Snorkak.
It in no way implies that someone does.
Just that I do not.

Fair enough. Then who is it that has access to knowledge?

a reply to: Aphorism

Fair enough. Then who is it that has access to knowledge?

The theme your missing here is that I am saying "knowledge" is largely an illusion.
A security blanket in a way.
So it naturally follows.......................... ?
If you can't tell me there is little point in continuing this dialogue.

I am getting the feeling you're tied to a either or paradigm here.
"If we don't. Then someone must!"
And that isn't the only sticking point I am detecting.

Surely you can show me where I've argued against both these? I seem to have forget what I've said. But now you're using "know" in quotations. Is this Plato's "know"?

Not directly.
To do so would leave less wiggle room and commit you.

I'd love to hear Plato's definition of know, if you wouldn't mind sharing.

Why do you persist in asking absurd questions that have already been answered?

You deny a dictionary definition of "know"? So we are speaking about entirely different words here. What word are you actually speaking about then?

I suppose clarity isn't your fortay. At least it "sounds" that way to me.

This is funny because you then respond to the answer to these questions.


And that last part, well, the fact you're not getting it is not my failing.
It's not like I am talking rocket science here.

originally posted by: Aphorism
If words could change anything, we'd all be speaking the same language. Instead, it is us that change the words by supplying the meaning. When we hear a set of words we understand we instill it with meaning, and are able to make sense of it. When we hear a set of words we do not understand, we are unable to instill it with meaning and are not able to make sense of it. The words themselves have no power until we give it to them. 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.

I don't see why we would speak the same language on a account of that.

Yes we do instill meaning into words, thus we can communicate with eachother. It's practical that way.

I agree that the word 'Sun' is not the sun in and of itself. We use the word so when we see/hear the word, we know to what it is referring. The same way the word 'pain' is not pain in and of itself. Each of us know by personal experience what pain is. Obviously it is not a word. So when we tell eachother that the stove is hot, and it will bring pain if you touch it. The only way to know IF it brings pain is to touch it.
If I have a map of an island and there is waterfall, and I can use the map to lead me to the experience of the waterfall, then the word waterfall and the actual waterfall is not the same thing. We realize that the word does so little to convey what a waterfall actually is when experienced firsthand.
In much the same way, focusing on "I Am" does not in and of itself convey what it means, it is but a map with directions to that experience.

a reply to: scratchmane

I don't see why we would speak the same language on a account of that.

Yes we do instill meaning into words, thus we can communicate with eachother. It's practical that way.

Those who do not understand english would not benefit from focusing on "I Am"? If it is some great map to some great wherever, then it would be a universal statement understood by everyone. But no, it only works on those who speak English.

In much the same way, focusing on "I Am" does not in and of itself convey what it means, it is but a map with directions to that experience.

Speaking in such analogies do not paint any meaningful picture. Unfortunately, it only obfuscates. "I am" is meaningless as a statement. You might as well try focusing on "I'm"—it might be a little quicker.

originally posted by: Aphorism
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as absolute anything, whether it be certainty or truth.

You state the above as though you are absolutely certain that it is the truth.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

You state the above as though you are absolutely certain that it is the truth.

How can I be absolutely certain if absolute certainty doesn't exist?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Itisnowagain

You state the above as though you are absolutely certain that it is the truth.

How can I be absolutely certain if absolute certainty doesn't exist?

You seemed pretty certain that if I go kick a rock, the resulting pain means that the rock is real. What if it's just a prop in the cosmic theatre of the mind? What if the you that you think you are is just a mask?

There is only one thing I am absolutely certain is not imaginary. And that is the imagination itself!

It turns out that the incomprehensible void has quite an imagination. We are all expressions of it, playing, in spacetime. The void is the backstage, the actors, the stage, and the props.

a reply to: BlueMule

You seemed pretty certain that if I go kick a rock, the resulting pain means that the rock is real. What if it's just a prop in the cosmic theatre of the mind? What if the you that you think you are is just a mask?

I am certain. Go try it. Not only the resulting pain, but the damage your foot receives, is a clear indication of what happens when two physical things collide, and is sufficient enough to be certain about. If you think it is just an illusion, you should have no fear doing it. So why won't you do it?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

You seemed pretty certain that if I go kick a rock, the resulting pain means that the rock is real. What if it's just a prop in the cosmic theatre of the mind? What if the you that you think you are is just a mask?

I am certain. Go try it. Not only the resulting pain, but the damage your foot receives, is a clear indication of what happens when two physical things collide, and is sufficient enough to be certain about. If you think it is just an illusion, you should have no fear doing it. So why won't you do it?

Because when I'm in a human body, I feel human pain. When I'm in my dream body, I feel dream pain. And when I'm in my body of Light, I have no limits.

So, pain is part of being on-stage in spacetime in a human body. It comes with the mask. The difference between us, is you are identifying with your stage mask, your 'ego-self', your body. But I have an expanded concept of self that includes much more than this 'Clark Kent' mask.