The paradox of knowledge

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I am sorry but you lost me. We experience the world through our senses, correct. My point was, "nothingness", as in an infinite void, cannot be known because there is nothing to know, or experience. So to say, "nothingness", can be known, is incorrect. In this way, "nothingness" is just a philosophical concept, whereas a "table" can be known directly through our senses. Do you agree?

Peace.

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


Alan Watts says it better than me.
youtu.be...

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Thanks. From what I can tell, he is basically saying what I said, just more eloquently of course. We are basically "nothing", as in no-thing, because everything is impermanent and made up of aggregates. This we can know. Yet we cannot know what "nothingness", as in an infinite void of anything, is because "knowing" is of something.

Here is a video explaining this better, you can skip ahead to 5:30 if you'd like.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

"Nothing" can be "known".

Do you 'know' this to be true?

Not sure who stated that, but unless they are redefining these words, this makes no sense. "Nothing" is void of any "thing" (space, energy, time, atoms...), therefore there is no thing to be known. This is also the problem I see with the "something from nothing" model of the universe. For "something" to arise out of "nothing", would entail there to be some outside event influencing causation within this "nothing". However, "nothing" cannot have boundaries, if it did, then it would be something inside of something else, denoting the whole idea of "nothing". Therefore, "nothing" must be an infinite void, which denotes any possibility for "something" to arise from it, even "knowing".

Peace.

PS. Did you study the NAP, in your signature, from Stefan? If so,

He has some great ideas.

edit on 10-9-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)

I think what I was questioning was the assertion that a lot of irrational thinkers make - that truth is unknowable, and that they know this to be true. If truth is truly unknowable, there would be no way to know if this statement was true or not!

Nothingness is exactly the same as non existence.

Hehe and ya, Im definitely a huge Molyneux fan, which is to say im definitely a huge logic and evidence fan~

I think I understand. The first time I tasted jackfruit, I was in Vietnam, and I ate it fresh from a tree. I never tasted anything like it before. It was so sweet, but so different from any other kind of sweet I've ever tasted. I could not relate it to any memory in my past as no such memory existed. So I tasted the fruit fully. Now, every time I taste jackfruit, I compare the taste to when I first tasted it in Vietnam. In America it's usually only available in dried form. The flavor is near null and the dried chips have preservatives. Once, I found the fruit itself in an Asian market in Toronto. I even shelled out $20 for it as it was very expensive, but I felt it would be worth it to taste the real fruit. I was nothing but disappointed. The fruit was not as syrupy and finger-licking as my first experience. The taste felt like 10% the taste of the jackfruit fresh in Vietnam. The fact that it cost me $20 for what would have cost $1 or $2 in Vietnam, added even more disappointment to it. I couldn't even enjoy eating the jackfruit because my memories were so strong. I do feel like I tasted it. Obviously, I did, or I would not have felt it tasted subpar, but I do acknowledge that it prevented me from enjoying it.

Very good points raised so far, its kinda strange how i have never of thought of it this way, even though smells often trigger strong memories for me. Even today i was at a shop and i walked into a room and it instantly reminded me of playing Halo: Combat Evolved at my friends house years ago. I turned around to my brother and said "It smells like Halo in here", of course he thought i was crazy. I dont know what it is about smell that triggers these things for me, that doesnt happen to any of my friends.

Any comments on whats so different about me?

Originally posted by moldy4
Very good points raised so far, its kinda strange how i have never of thought of it this way, even though smells often trigger strong memories for me. Even today i was at a shop and i walked into a room and it instantly reminded me of playing Halo: Combat Evolved at my friends house years ago. I turned around to my brother and said "It smells like Halo in here", of course he thought i was crazy. I dont know what it is about smell that triggers these things for me, that doesnt happen to any of my friends.

Any comments on whats so different about me?

I think everyone has those moments. I think your brother thought you were crazy though because you said the room smelled like halo when you should have said, this room smells like my friend's house.

But anyway, smells do trigger tons of memories. When I smell Sandlewood incense, the most immediate memory is at my aunt's house because they had a Buddhist shrine in their living room.

I've talked with someone who says whenever they smell lavender they're reminded of their grandma. They even said, sometimes they catch a whiff of lavender in the house, and they think it's the ghost of their grandma walking by (she died in their house).

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

 

The problem is with the raising of the scientific method to exalted status as the be all and end all for describing reality, and as a result the human mind has become completely deluded and is hardly able to feel any sense of belonging, in reality itself.

It would be.very funny, if it wasn't so terribly sad.

Hmm if find this curious, your notion that the accurate description of reality via the scientific method somehow detaches us from it. My personal experience is the exact opposite - the more i understand about reality, the more at ease i feel towards it.

Do you feel there is a more accurate method for the acquisition of knowledge? If so, please enlighten us.

reply to post by Xaberz


Oh how I love the taste of jackfruit in the morning!



Sorry, I couldn't resist.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


What have you understood about reality so far?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


That 2+2 = 4 and that violence = evil. thats about it really.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


How can there be creation without destruction?
'Things' will always appear, however they have to disappear as well. This is named by humans as violence and they come to the conclusion that it is evil.
You are the creator and destroyer of all worlds. How you name it is how it is experienced, for you.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

How can there be creation without destruction?
'Things' will always appear, however they have to disappear as well. This is named by humans as violence and they come to the conclusion that it is evil.
You are the creator and destroyer of all worlds. How you name it is how it is experienced, for you.

Are you saying that no value judgments can be applied to any human actions?

reply to post by Neo_Serf


I am saying that it is only humans who have value judgment. It is this judgment that dictates your personal life. How you name 'things', events, happenings is the judgment. Animals are not seen as violent, it is known it is nature.

The naming of things, events and happenings is the knowledge, however it is second hand and old news. It only exists as a thought in your mind.
This ever fresh present moment is intelligence, it is where it is all happening. It is wordless, before thought has chance to box it up and name it. When it is named a story can develop, nothing is made in to something (creation).
Nothing is happening now yet stories appear from this. You are the creator and destroyer of all stories (worlds).

I am saying that it is only humans who have value judgment. It is this judgment that dictates your personal life. How you name 'things', events, happenings is the judgment. Animals are not seen as violent, it is known it is nature.

Right. Our unique ability to perceive ourselves and contemplate the consequences of our actions is for sure a human thing. But this doesnt answer my question.

.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


There is no answer for the human. The human would be divine if it realized this. The human always has questions, therefore it doesn't realize that it is the definitive answer.
The answer is here so can not be found.

reply to post by smithjustinb

Our purpose is not to know, it is to experience. Knowledge is what you think. So stop thinking, and just be with what is there.

The inherent & primal faculty of consciousness (awareness) is to know/perceive exactly 'what is' directly and instantaneously. What is experienced IS knowledge... and you ARE knowledge. You fall into an abyss of ignorance/confusion if you imagine that truth is something static, if you construct veils of preconceptions, if you say this is my body, my mind, etc. (statements which are half-truths), if you don't trust your consciousness (your guide) anymore, if you mistake imagination, personal judgements and speculations of others for truths, etc., etc...

Knowledge is what you think...

Knowledge is not what you think. It's what is offered to you (physically and non-physically) and what stands "above" every constituents of Prakriti (the body, emotions, mind, etc., etc.) is the detached witness, the direct knower.

You are Sat Chit Ananda.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

There is no answer for the human. The human would be divine if it realized this. The human always has questions, therefore it doesn't realize that it is the definitive answer.
The answer is here so can not be found.

So your answer is that there cannot be an answer? If humans are incapable of grasping truth, how can you say to me that this is true? After all, youre making a truth statement here.

What I got from your response is that 'it is true that humans cannot know truth.' If this is true then this is false. How do you explain this contradiction?

Is it true that we cannot know what is true?

reply to post by Neo_Serf


The Truth cannot be put into name and form (concepts). Name and form (concepts) are fabrications of experience (sense feelings). This conceptualization entails reflection upon the sense feelings of past events (memory), which of course no longer exist. Therefore, when labeling something as true we immediately run into the problem of time. How can something that does not exist be true?

Some people claim a statement like, "the mind is really me, I am the mind", is the Truth and the statement, "the mind is not really me, I am not the mind" is false. However, when we ask them what the mind is and how they know it is really theirs, they must reflect upon past experiences and attach a name and form (concept) to an experience just to bring a fabrication of that experience into the present moment. Then they are forced to say "memory is the mind, I am memory". Yet when we then ask them if they can remember every second of last wednesday, they say, "of course not." So then essentially by claiming they are the mind, yet admitting the concept of "mind" is a reflection upon the past and therefore the identification with "mind" is but a memory, but still yet, they cannot remember every event of last wednesday, they are in actuality saying, "I did not exist last wednesday." But of course they existed last wednesday, right? Well, then the Truth cannot be, "I am the mind".

And so, the Truth is not a 'something' that can be pinned down and labeled as this or that. The closest to conceptualizing the Truth we can come to, is from a reductive standpoint of, "not this, not this". Yet this gets us no where, and sooner or later we realize the Truth cannot be given name and form. That is why the Buddha, when answering questions about the "Truth" of things, such as the "self", would say, "it is not correct to say the self is real, nor is it correct to say the self is not real, nor is it correct to say the self is both real and not real, nor is it correct to say the self is not both real and not real."

Peace.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

TextThe Truth cannot be put into name and form (concepts).

So it is the Truth, then, that the truth cannot be expressed as a concept. Here youve created a concept that describes truth as unknowable, and asserted this concept to be true.

Mind clarifying to me, without the use of concepts, of course, how you square this contradiction?

Name and form (concepts) are fabrications of experience (sense feelings).

would you say this is true?

This conceptualization entails reflection upon the sense feelings of past events (memory), which of course no longer exist. Therefore, when labeling something as true we immediately run into the problem of time. How can something that does not exist be true?

Because that instance *did* exist at one point. And yes I agree whole heartedly that concepts are derived *imperfectly* from the behavior of matter and are thus subject to error in the error prone human mind.

This capacity for error implies a capacity for truth, though. If all perception was error, it wouldnt be called error, because error is measured relative to truth. Therefor, that our error prone human minds have the capacity to mess up indicates that is has the capacity to be correct.

SO that a computer can make errors in its processing does not invalidate the correct functions it performs. similarly, that my mind can, and does make errors does not necessarily means that all my concepts are in error.

if you dont believe me, try adding 2 and 2 for a while, and see if you come up with anything other than 4. if you do, youve made an error, which would seem silly in relation to the *truth* that 2+2=4, from now until the end of time.

So clearly, in the realm of elementary math at least, the capacity for the human mind to grasp what exists ontologically must be valid, to some degree at least.

However, when we ask them what the mind is and how they know it is really theirs, they must reflect upon past experiences and attach a name and form (concept) to an experience just to bring a fabrication of that experience into the present moment.

That our memory is a little fuzzy, and non existent at times, does no invalidate the physical reality of that which we have trouble remembering.

If i forget to set my alarm for work, and i sleep in as a result, my lack of memory has no bearing on if the work day starts or not for others.

Reality exists independent of our flawed perception of it.

Then they are forced to say "memory is the mind, I am memory". Yet when we then ask them if they can remember every second of last wednesday, they say, "of course not." So then essentially by claiming they are the mind, yet admitting the concept of "mind" is a reflection upon the past and therefore the identification with "mind" is but a memory, but still yet, they cannot remember every event of last wednesday, they are in actuality saying, "I did not exist last wednesday." But of course they existed last wednesday, right? Well, then the Truth cannot be, "I am the mind".

That i cannot remember the 17th century does not mean i do not posses a mind.

That is why the Buddha, when answering questions about the "Truth" of things, such as the "self", would say, "it is not correct to say the self is real, nor is it correct to say the self is not real, nor is it correct to say the self is both real and not real, nor is it correct to say the self is not both real and not real."

And you accept the self contradictory and frankly ridiculous ramblings of a psychotic half starved monk who lived in ancient times to have the market on truth cornered?

What you quoted there is complete jibberish, and if you were to actually apply those principles to your waking life you would quickly go mad.

sorry to be harsh, but this is a thread about *knowledge*.

Peace.

edit on 19-10-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)