You cannot know Awareness

[Mellowmarsh]

36 minutes ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh You are treating “knowing” too conceptually by making a fixed conceptual split between knowing and knowledge. Awareness is not always accessed as one flat sine wave, it can disclose itself through layers, depths, states, and developmental capacities.

Conceptuality often cloaks awareness , however as a kind of meta-constructural language it also allows awareness to better differentiate, bring balance and recognise itself. So the distinction between direct knowing and conceptual knowledge is useful though only situationally and domain-specifically, not as a global absolute. Because different states of awareness are also going to bring about different bidirectional feedback loops with the content within awareness.

Best regards.

Appreciate your input and response.

 

But I have absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about.

Best to you too.

[Joseph Maynor]

7 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Awareness can know a thought. ie: a concept, the concept “you” …which is a thought.

But the concept / thought knows nothing. 

Awareness is not the concept / thought it knows.

A thought / concept cannot objectify awareness without turning awareness into an object known, which it is not.

Is really how it plays out. Yes, really. 

This puts a lot of thought conditions on Awareness ironically.

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This puts a lot of thought conditions on Awareness ironically.

False I 

 

The true I that you are cannot be seen, touched, described, or lost.

 It has no form, no age, or destiny. 

[Mellowmarsh]

The “You” that is already a known concept, cannot know the source of knowing awareness, because it is the source. 
 

The claim to know is always a not-knowing concept known, which knows nothing.

 

Knowing is all there is. This knowing is a knowing that cannot be known. Because how can infinity or oneness know itself without splitting into many concepts known, which know nothing.

[Joseph Maynor]

38 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

The “You” that is

 

[Mellowmarsh]

33 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

Is nothing. Unless it’s a concept known, which also knows nothing. 

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh I mean this super simply, sorry when I write on the fly I sometimes forget the readers geography. 

This is a better pointer...

U are using thoughts to say thoughts cannot know awareness.

That is still a thought.

I agree awareness is deeper than thoughts.

A word is not awareness.

An idea is not awareness.

But words and ideas can still help point to awareness.

Like a mirror.

The mirror is not your face.

But it can still help you see your face.

So yes, awareness is beyond words.

Tho do not turn that into another strict belief.

Use the words, then look past the words.

 

Edited May 1 by oOo

[Mellowmarsh]

5 minutes ago, oOo said:

That said, do not turn that into another hard belief.

I don’t turn it into belief, I turn it into clarity. 

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh i am not going to try convince u. U seem locked in ur frame.

Awareness can also go up and down depending on the thoughts and therefore content within them, and meanings from those can go up and down depending on kind of awareness that deoends on consciousness state. That was the main point 

Believe what u want 

[Mellowmarsh]

7 minutes ago, oOo said:

Awareness is not always the same.

When you are stressed, awareness may feel unclear.

When you are calm, awareness may feel clearer.

As you grow, awareness can also develop.

I still don’t know what you mean by those statements.

For me, awareness is the simple immediate observing of changing thoughts, and feeling's. 
 Not that awareness changes. 

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh maybe thats just how it is for u

Tho for me sometimes when I checkout this forum I dont feel myself becoming more enlightened but less. My awareness has changed.

Not structurally, at least not yet perhaps we will come up with an internet brain rot meme, if used too often, but functionally. Just as if I am shown a scary image followed by w happy image or vice versa. All unexpectedly.

That is actually thr most fascinating fMRI experiment

best wishes 

[Mellowmarsh]

7 minutes ago, oOo said:

i am not going to try convince u. U seem locked in ur frame.

Do you honestly think I have a need to be convinced of what I already understand.

I only know my own mind and how it works, no one will convince me otherwise of what I already know. 
There is only my frame here that I have to refer to. I’m not someone else, and nobody else is me.

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh in generality u r irrefutably. Incorrect.

Inside ur own world, u r undeniably "frame/praise worthy"

As I said. It's fine. Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

Because u r just here to tell everyone what u have already figured out about what is personal for u, which is fine, not if u want to extend the conversation to either an ontological or scientific generality 

Take care

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh in generality u r irrefutably. Incorrect.

Inside ur own world, u r undeniably "frame/praise worthy"

As I said. It's fine. Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

Because u r just here to tell everyone what u have already figured out about what is personal for u, which is fine, not if u want to extend the conversation to either an ontological or scientific generality 

Take care

Believe or not, I’m here for my own entertainment purposes only. I’m completely self loving and completely selfish to the core.

Byeee, and thanks for swinging by with your opinion which you are entitled to have, of course. I’m in no frame of mind to deny you your own truth.

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh 

I would not comment here if I was here purely for my "own truth."

That would make me as equally selfish as you have claimed yourself to be. Detailing at least implicitly how you were here just to waste, in this case, my time before I decided to comment, would have been appreciated. 

I clearly stated I was looking to observe and support discussion on an ontological to scientific reality. That is not "my own truth".

Please choose to avoid mentioning my name directly or indirectly before mischaracterising me again.

That is my personal boundary, and that is the second/third boundary broken. Thank you.

Edited May 1 by oOo

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh I would not comment here if I was here purely for my "own truth."

That would make me as equally selfish as you have claimed yourself to be. Detailing at least implcitly how you were here just to waste, in this case, my time before I decided to comment, would have been appreciated. 

I clearly stated I was looking to observe and support discussion on an ontological to scientific reality. 

Please choose to avoid mentioning my name before mischaracterising me again.

That is my personal boundary, and that is the second boundary broken. Thank you.

Good for you.

 

Good luck finding a sparring partner to discuss ontological to scientific reality. But discussing BS is not my style.

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh this is now the fourth boundary broken.

If there is bullshit, state it, or respect my stance as I have respected your own sovereignty accordingly. 

You have shifted from ignorance to denial to frame control and now disrespect because u feel cornered when if u were just cool with things, u would have just had interesting questions that led this conversation somewhere

As stated and I quote:

"avoid mentioning my name directly or indirectly before mischaracterising me again."

 

Read your own signature, thats where I got the inspiration.

 

 

 

 

That said.

 

Very politely now.

 

Fuck off.

 

Do not mention my name or refer to me in any way shape or form again. Thank you.

 

 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh this is now the fourth boundary broken.

If there is bullshit, state it, or respect my stance as I have respected your own sovereignty accordingly. 

You have shifted from ignorance to denial to frame control and now disrespect because u feel cornered when if u were just cool with things, u would have just had interesting questions that led this conversation somewhere

As stated and I quote:

"avoid mentioning my name directly or indirectly before mischaracterising me again."

 

Read your own signature, thats where I got the inspiration.

 

 

 

 

That said.

 

Very politely now.

 

Fuck off.

 

Do not mention my name or refer to me in any way shape or form again. Thank you.

 

 

 

Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

[oOo]

 

And now u r directly quoting me as a part of some strange ego game u have going in ur own imagination

 

43 minutes ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh in generality u r irrefutably. Incorrect.

Inside ur own world, u r undeniably "frame/praise worthy"

As I said. It's fine. Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

Because u r just here to tell everyone what u have already figured out about what is personal for u, which is fine, not if u want to extend the conversation to either an ontological or scientific generality 

Take care

 

 

12 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

Thats now the 5th.

Though my mistake, I mistook you for someone that was at least 18 years of age.

My bad. 

Observations made. Points taken. Will just scroll right past you next time. 

Done.

 

 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

Just now, No1Here2c said:

@Mellowmarsh

You & I both Love you & I both

That’s nice. I relate. 🙂