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 yesterday at 01:01 PM 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 yesterday at 01:12 PM 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 yesterday at 02:19 PM 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 yesterday at 02:12 PM 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 yesterday at 02:31 PM 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.

[Anton Rogachevski]

1 hour ago, integral said:

lol i dont know, tell me what knowing is

It's obviously not having ideas and believing them. It depends what kind of "truth" you are looking for. The ultimate ground of reality? The substance of everything? 

I'm focused on a much humbler version: "Phenomenological Truth" - that which is right now in your direct consciousness prior to interpretation. If you see the color Red than it's true that you are having an experience of the color red, a pure qualia. Sounds basic and boring but it has some very radical consequences if you think about it deeply. I've talked about some of them in Chapter 2 in my blog.

What you said about the knowledge of pain is interesting. In your thought experiment that would literally mean that as Phenomenological Truth, the phenomenon of pain wouldn't exist for you. But it's also true right now, if you are not having any pain.

Edited yesterday at 04:07 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[Anton Rogachevski]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course.

Awakening is Truth itself.

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

From a not-awakened state it doesn't help me that I'm it? As our friend said states are temporary and we can't expect a constant high state. Recently I am trying to increase my state in natural ways, but haven't seen much progress. How important are high states even if temporary?

[integral]

40 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

It's obviously not having ideas and believing them. It depends what kind of "truth" you are looking for. The ultimate ground of reality? The substance of everything? 

I'm focused on a much humbler version: "Phenomenological Truth" - that which is right now in your direct consciousness prior to interpretation. If you see the color Red than it's true that you are having an experience of the color red, a pure qualia. Sounds basic and boring but it has some very radical consequences if you think about it deeply. I've talked about some of them in Chapter 2 in my blog.

What you said about the knowledge of pain is interesting. In your thought experiment that would literally mean that as Phenomenological Truth, the phenomenon of pain wouldn't exist for you. But it's also true right now, if you are not having any pain.

We're mixing up the terms, experience vs knowing or knowledge.

Experiencing something directly is a useful epistemic tool that then converts to a knowing of something or a piece of knowledge.

When we think of things, we're not experiencing it directly. We are remembering it as a packaged idea or knowledge piece.

The example I gave about raising your state of consciousness so you can have direct experience and then know something directly. When that happens, that experience is then converted to an object or idea for which people use to communicate and so on.

Knowing pain through the direct experience becomes a concept of pain (knowledge) afterwards

Edited yesterday at 04:38 PM by integral

[Anton Rogachevski]

13 minutes ago, integral said:

We're mixing up the terms, experience vs knowing or knowledge.

Experiencing something directly is a useful epistemic tool that then converts to a knowing of something or a piece of knowledge.

When we think of things, we're not experiencing it directly. We are remembering it as a packaged idea or knowledge piece.

The example I gave about raising your state of consciousness so you can have direct experience and then know something directly. When that happens, that piece of knowledge is then converted to an object or idea for which people use to communicate and so on.

Ok so it's having a memory of an experience? There's another layer. On top of experience there's interpretation. Do you mean that?

Please give an example of something you know. What does it mean for you to know it? 

I think that in spirituality as opposed to philosophy knowing is being itself. To realize you are it, and just be it. 

Edited yesterday at 04:45 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

From a not-awakened state it doesn't help me that I'm it?

Everything you see is Truth, you just arrn't recognizing it.

28 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

How important are high states even if temporary?

Supremely important.

[Someone here]

On ٧‏/١١‏/٢٠٢٦ at 0:34 AM, Leo Gura said:

Experience = Consciousness

Consciousness/Experience cannot be framed because they must be groundless/Infinite due to Oneness.

In the end there can only be One thing. Call it whatever you like, but it must be One. You can call it Consciousness, or experience, or Being, or Reality, or whatever. But it must be One. If it is One, it cannot have a ground or a frame.

I agree and I understand this point very well .

On ٧‏/١١‏/٢٠٢٦ at 0:34 AM, Leo Gura said:

By experience I do not mean only your present experience, but any possible experience.

Here’s my question. You’ve actually used experience in the past as “Absolute Being “.  You teach that all experience = my experience, because I’m god , the absolute.

Is there an experience other than my present experience?  My own answer is I honestly don’t know. And if I’m not mistaken, your answer is NO . 

[Leo Gura]

42 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Is there an experience other than my present experience?

All experience is You, by definition.

Edited 57 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

All experience is You, by definition.

Ok but this leaves room for two possibilities:

- we both are having a simultaneous experience right now , just that I’m you .

- it’s literally only my experience right now right here and there’s nothing else . Pure solipsism.

in my mind there is a difference between the two.

[Someone here]

@Leo Gura btw I know I’ve caused you headaches for repeating this question , so feel free to ignore it .lol 

obviously the nature of the question is such that only I can answer it. 
nobody else can answer it for me .