A Meta-Philosophical view of the epistemic process of understanding

[integral]

8 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

You seem to have erased the "unknown", everything is known? Nothing is hidden? (I would say that it appears so from a phenomenological perspective)

Knowing is a concept, its part of the ideas circle.

Ideas are objects and knowing is how many object you collect.

Image a room full of objects, each one is an abstract "idea".

Math is mapping physics, but that map is knowledge and it exists only in the ideas layer

Edited 2 hours ago by integral

[Anton Rogachevski]

14 minutes ago, integral said:

Knowing is a concept

How do you know this?
Can anything be known? So talking about knowing\not knowing is useless? Why do epistemology?

I think Leo would claim that consciousness can know itself fully.

Edited 2 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski

[integral]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

I think Leo would claim that consciousness can know itself fully.

You can become conscious of god when your state raises up high enough, but that is a temperary state of knowing that is forgotten when you loss your state. Knowing is state dependent. The less conscious you become the less knowing your capable of, aka your conscious of less.

Knowing = to become conscious of.

If you were born with out pain receptors, would you know what pain is? No! you dont have the experiencial equipment for it. You will never know it because Knowing depends on state. You can know it conceptually by learning about pain but is that "true" knowing? 

 

Consciousness is hiding part of it self to itself. Knowing is revealing parts.

You are God pretending to be human, means to invent "forgetting" and the knowledge game.

Look at anything you know, is that "all of reality?", no its only a part of reality. Anything is always a part not all of it.

Any theory of everything is never it, because its a part of reality not reality itself.

People confusing the map for the territory.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by integral

[Nemra]

It is required that truth be beyond epistemology so that epistemology could be possible.

No epistemology can define what truth actually is.

Edited 1 hour ago by Nemra

[Anton Rogachevski]

@integral Are you yourself not confused right now from what you wrote? : )

[integral]

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

It is required that truth be beyond epistemology so that epistemology could be possible.

No epistemology can define what truth actually is.

Ye it a tool for a corrupt human blinded by there high to make sense of truth. 

 

[integral]

5 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@integral Are you yourself not confused right now from what you wrote? : )

lol i dont know, tell me what knowing is

[Anton Rogachevski]

@integral Mu!

[Nemra]

I'm not saying that epistemology is BS.

You wouldn't know how truthful your epistemology is if your epistemology defined what truth is.

Edited 1 hour ago by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

So you are 100% confident that awakening gives you the ability to understand the metaphysical ground of reality?

Of course.

Awakening is Truth itself.

Don't overlook that you can have direct access to Truth.