Knowing about Knowing

[Steven Coyle]

17 x state is the so vast I think the LBJ is nothing but fine, my man

[Steven Coyle]

my same self self: "Stev State."

[Cory Duchesne]

Knowledge at it's most fundamental level is simply A is A. You can't reduce it any simpler. We all function under the premise of A=A, so it's just a matter of becoming conscious about what we already know.

Cory, let's imagine that I'm staring at a dog. I recognize the dog as a dog, or I at least distinguish him as a thing in contrast to the other surrounding things.

Now, what if I just doubt it? What if I just look at the dog with uncertainty?

By doubting the appearance of the dog, you've already accepted it as an appearance. In other words, you can't logically doubt the appearance of something that has appeared. You can however doubt certain things about the dog. Maybe he's a hologram? He's kinda far away, maybe it's a statue or a big cat? There are things you don't know about the thing you are seeing, but one thing is certain - he appears.

My point is that A=A is not absolute. You can look at something, and you can doubt it.

Doubt what? Just look and see what happens when you say to yourself "I am doubting the appearance of the dog" The appearance of what? You have accepted the dog appears, there's no getting out of it!

In other words, doubting that it appears, implies that it appears.

You can just go blank. You can abide in uncertainty.

Oh yeah, and how do you know that? ;)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Knowing at it's most fundamental is simply accepting an appearance as an appearance.

That sounds like my second definition because simply accepting something - that something that is accepted may be true or false.

By doubting the appearance of the dog, you've already accepted it as an appearance. In other words, you can't logically doubt the appearance of something that has appeared. You can however doubt certain things about the dog. Maybe he's a hologram? He's kinda far away, maybe it's a statue or a big cat? There are things you don't know about the thing you are seeing, but one thing is certain - he appears.

It seems that you are saying that you can't know for sure if this is actually a dog, but you can know that it appears to be a dog. How did you come to accept this? Did your acceptance involve the indicators of the results of deep, logical thought? And isn't the appearance itself an indicator that there might be something there?

[Cory Duchesne]

Knowing at it's most fundamental is simply accepting an appearance as an appearance.

That sounds like my second definition because simply accepting something - that something that is accepted may be true or false.

There is no issue about it being true or false. That issue doesn't arise.

The appearance can change into something else, but if it changes, that doesn't render the previous impressions as not having occurred. The occurrence of the appearance is what is true. If some object in the distance looks like a dog, getting closer and realizing it's a crooked stump doesn't mean that you never had the impression of it being a dog 30 seconds earlier.

By doubting the appearance of the dog, you've already accepted it as an appearance. In other words, you can't logically doubt the appearance of something that has appeared. You can however doubt certain things about the dog. Maybe he's a hologram? He's kinda far away, maybe it's a statue or a big cat? There are things you don't know about the thing you are seeing, but one thing is certain - he appears.

It seems that you are saying that you can't know for sure if this is actually a dog, but you can know that it appears to be a dog. How did you come to accept this?

Because in order to reject anything, you must first accept it. If you don't accept anything, then you have nothing to reject.

So an appearance is logically impossible to deny, because denial first requires acceptance.

So I suppose there is one indicator: logic. Logic indicates what is true.

Did your acceptance involve the indicators of the results of deep, logical thought?

I would not say that there are multiple indicators. There is just your logic.

And isn't the appearance itself an indicator that there might be something there?

The logic (or, the mind) itself is the only indicator. So yes, there is that one indicator.

[Kunga]

logic is not truth

logic is used to navigate the phenomenal world of what is known

what is unknown is illlogical

there is more unknown than known in the Universe

the rules of logic must include what is not logical

or the truth will never be known


is it logical that a dog change into a human right before your eyes ?


enter the yogi.

[Steven Coyle]

the left love is dank

[Kunga]

the left love is dank

pass the joint...

[Steven Coyle]

quantum:

different context to new e re

[Nick]

We are all Buddhas.

This confuses me. If we are all Buddhas (enlightened), then what's the point in going after enlightenment?

I was trying to give you a different perspective on things by pointing out you're own Buddha nature, i.e. you are already conscious, you already "know", all you have to do is recognize it, then there is enlightenment.

I'm not sure what it is going to take exactly, but at this point in your spiritual development, I don't think an intellectual explanation from others is going to help very much. You just need something to click in your head where suddenly you realize exactly what others and myself are pointing to. You either get it on your own, or you don't get it at all.

The old zen proverb, before enlightenment chop wood carry water. after enlightenment chop wood carry water, attempts to illustrate this by pointing out that pre-enlightened consciousness and post-enlightened consciousness operate based on the same principles of A=A and causality. The only difference is that the enlightened individual understands this, the unenlightened individual does not.

[Steven Coyle]

before enlightenment chop wood carry water, after enlightenment chop wood carry water translates to we're all there for you keep it.

[Loki]

After thinking over the things discussed in this thread, I feel absolutely confident in the truth of A=A. Thanks to all who have helped me in this thread, I got exactly what I aimed to achieve.

What remains for me is to realize with absolute certainty:

a) the illusion of a beginning and an end
b) how the totality is infinite
c) how boundaries are illusory

[Nick]

After thinking over the things discussed in this thread, I feel absolutely confident in the truth of A=A.

Prove it! :)

a) the illusion of a beginning and an end
b) how the totality is infinite
c) how boundaries are illusory

Please feel free to elaborate on what you're having trouble understanding about these things. And remember, A=A is not just knowledge, it's a weapon!

[Loki]

Well, let me just explain to you what I do know.

I understand there are appearances. I get that. Absolutely. I also understand the necessity of duality, contrast, and relativity. It isn't possible to talk about a thing without that thing having a contrasting otherness. That is crystal clear.

Here's the problem:

I like to imagine the universe as flowing through a straight tube. The tube has a beginning, and the tube has an end. The beginning is a void, and the end is a void. So basically, all matter/energy emerges out of nothing, and it flows into the opposite end, get sucked into nothing. The tube has no exterior, there is only interior.

Now, you may accuse me of setting up a scenario that defies causality, but not really. When matter emerges out of the void, in one sense it has no cause, but in another sense, it emerges in contrast with other things. So the moment it exists, it is in relation (and is thus caused) by all the other things that it is surrounded by.

I know the above sounds silly, but it could be true, so my point is that you can't state with absolute certainty that beginnings and ends are illusory.

[Nick]

Appearances have beginnings and ends by definition, they are not inherent, but they are in fact existing boundaries.

But lets forget your thought experiment for a minute and look at the Totality like this:

The nature of appearances (the finite) and the Totality (the infinite) are intertwined. The simplest way to express this would be to say that we can potentially carve the Totality into an INFINITE number of FINITE appearances. Understand this and you understand everything. What say you?

[Kunga]

How about this :

If you think you know...you don't know.
Not knowing is knowing.

[Nick]

Knowing that you don't know is just one of many things to know.

[Kunga]

Then maybe you should stop thinking about knowing about not knowing

[Loki]

The nature of appearances (the finite) and the Totality (the infinite) are intertwined. The simplest way to express this would be to say that we can potentially carve the Totality into an INFINITE number of FINITE appearances. Understand this and you understand everything. What say you?

Ok, but this permits a bounded totality, does it not? I can imagine a bounded totality, and sure, cut it up infinitely. But it's still bounded (finite).

But stop right there for a second. How do you even know for certain that something can be infinitely divisible? Isn't it possible that I could divide, divide, divide, and then finally be left with two indivisible particles?

[Gurrb]

the heuristic paradox

[Gurrb]

But stop right there for a second. How do you even know for certain that something can be infinitely indivisible? Isn't it possible that I could divide, divide, divide, and then finally be left with two indivisible particles?

So we'd like to think...

[Nick]

Ok, but this permits a bounded totality, does it not? I can imagine a bounded totality, and sure, cut it up infinitely. But it's still bounded (finite).

But stop right there for a second. How do you even know for certain that something can be infinitely indivisible? Isn't it possible that I could divide, divide, divide, and then finally be left with two indivisible particles?

I think we talked about this before. I told you that whether or not we ever figure out how to "physically" divide something doesn't matter. What matters is that we can always mentally divide an appearance in half, then we can mentally divide that half in half, then divide that half of a half in half, ad infinitum, hence The Infinite. It also works this way if we want to combine appearances to infinity. The Finite is The Infinite. Remember, A=A.

[Nick]

Then maybe you should stop thinking about knowing about not knowing

We all know, but not everybody knows that they know.

[Kunga]

Then maybe you should stop thinking about knowing about not knowing

We all know, but not everybody knows that they know.

and if they knew they knew they would know they didn't know they knew

[Nick]

Nick:

The Finite is The Infinite. Remember, A=A.

No, the finite is the finite, the infinite is the infinite.

You shouldn't take things like this out of context, it might get confusing.