Confused about a point

[Shin]

3 hours ago, Cepzeu said:

 

@Leo Gura Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking. The truth is that I don't know in most cases and this is where my questioning arose, because during self-inquiry I realized that a lot of the models I've heard I hold to be true and build my world-view around. The truth is most of my knowledge is second hand and inferred and for most things the true answer is "I don't know"

P.S. 156 pounds. Not a guess! I just know it

 

 

Pounds are a concept, you never experienced «pounds» in your entire life.

 

[Cepzeu]

Yes, I was just kidding  

 

[TheAvatarState]

On 1/26/2019 at 0:14 AM, Cepzeu said:

The reason I ask is that we discuss epistemology on this forum but also there are instances where conspiracy theories are shunned. Now I know that all of this is a distraction from spiritual work but I am asking because I want to know what is correct epistemologically. I can believe that the earth is round, I can believe that the earth is flat. From my direct experience, the earth is flat, so I feel like it would be further from the truth for me to believe the earth is round because that is a belief rather than direct experience, I only choose to believe the earth is round because it sounds rather plausible. But at the end of the day it's the same as a religious person believing in an anthropomorphic god.

You are absolutely right, that's a valid point. That should be your default stance on something that you know nothing about. It's important to say "I don't know" and to not become attached to any outcome.

But I don't know if you know this, but it's actually possible to prove to yourself that the earth is round! Extremely easy to see, with dozens of ways to cross reference and verify. You're lost in concepts, even outsourcing your understanding of the world to "scientists." I say that if you research and do some work, you can be certain whether the earth is round or flat today. Of course, the earth is part of Maya, illusion, but wouldn't it be relatively important and practical to know the fucking shape of the rock you live on?

[Cepzeu]

@TheAvatarState I have to be honest and say that for me personally it's not important or practical to know what the shape is hahaha , I could live on a triangular rock and my day-to-day life wouldn't be different. I just started this post out of curiosity. 

But see again, from a skeptical point of view, to prove that the earth is round I would have to fly out to space and see it being round. Even 'signs' like the stars moving, or a ship disappearing on the horizon etc. are phenomena by themselves, and to combine a set of phenomena and call the earth round would be an inference rather than proof. The cross referencing works for every day existence but truthfully arriving at a consensus point from cross-referenced material is not itself truth, it is an inference of true phenomena. I'm not in any way doubting the practicality of science when it does things this way. I'm just getting down to the root of discerning truth form not-truth in my direct experience. Unless I fly to space and see a round earth, the best I can say is "here is a bunch of evidence that points to the earth being round, in truth I don't know whether it's round or not, but given this evidence I can infer that it probably is".

(Keep in mind I'm not advocating for round earth vs flat earth, I'm just using it as an example.)

 

[Aakash]

you know in the end, there is no such thing as space, it's just a concept. so its ironic that its not even round or flat lol, but if i had to give my opinion, i've never actually researched this conspriacy intensly. but i watched one video someone posted here and it makes sense that the word earth = land and not even the word earth when they are regarding land as flat it makes total sense. but when you include the hemisphere, statisphere and space. it is round and so that makes sense. its a deterministic of political correctness of how you view "earth". 

words are confusing, never be friends with them (aakash, 2019) 

[TheAvatarState]

@Cepzeu my point still stands. You're playing the part of the false skeptic, because you can't admit to yourself that you don't know enough about the problem to know if it's even possible to arrive at a satisfactory, relative conclusion yet. You used concepts within your mind to assume that an answer couldn't be found, thus cutting you off from direct experience. This is quite a self-deception. 

Proof itself is an untenable notion because it implies absolute fact. I can't actually prove anything to you. In fact, like Godel, the only thing you can prove to yourself is that all proofs are unprovable. The fact that the earth is round is a generalized, relative fact. So what I meant by, "prove to yourself," is simply to observe that from your relative, human perspective, the earth is sensed to be round. 

You assume that this knowledge would be inconsequential to your life, but be open to the possibility that that's just an assumption to keep you tied up in concepts. It's way more practical than you know, but of course, the only way to KNOW is to explore this issue yourself. Don't be a false skeptic.

[Cepzeu]

@TheAvatarState I never said that I don't know enough about the problem, in fact it's the opposite, there are a huge number of things I don't know but I trick myself into a sense of knowing through modelling and taking on second-hand beliefs - which I'm trying to unravel, hence the post. I never said an answer couldn't be found, I said that I have not personally experienced that answer, I have only believed an answer, hence there is a disconnect. The difference is direct experience vs. belief.

From my human perspective, the point is exactly the opposite, the earth is sensed to be flat by me. This was the whole purpose on my post. Th earth is sensed to be flat in direct experience, but i believe a 'story/consensus' that it's round. My question was on the levels of epistemology surrounding those observations. I do not sense with my senses that the earth is round, I sense exactly the opposite.

In terms of practicality, I'm weaving away from that because it's besides the point of the post. If we're talking about the practicality of me carrying out my day-to-day needs /surviving then it actually of little practicality to me because I'm not a GPS engineer who is required to take earths roundness into account. I don't see how leaving the knowledge unknown is keeping me tied up in concepts. Saying "i don't really know" is closer to being than to  conceptualizing. Conceptualizing about the shape of the earth is further from being in direct experience no matter what shape the earth is.

[Aakash]

the ego needs to conceptualise to be safe, i swear once you realise everything is an illusion, you feel lost and feel like you need a step hold but then you gently relax and you become with things how they are currently. 

@TheAvatarState you know you were the one of the first people i talked to on this forum, i think i've grown so much ahaha as has everyone

[TheAvatarState]

20 minutes ago, Cepzeu said:

From my human perspective, the point is exactly the opposite, the earth is sensed to be flat by me. This was the whole purpose on my post. Th earth is sensed to be flat in direct experience, but i believe a 'story/consensus' that it's round. My question was on the levels of epistemology surrounding those observations. I do not sense with my senses that the earth is round, I sense exactly the opposite.

What I'm saying is that if you honestly investigated the issue with your direct experience, you would find otherwise. The direct experience you point at doesn't tell you anything outside of your field of view, and in both cases, this observation of your immediate experience would appear flat. Research scenarios in which you can use direct experience to see a difference between the flat vs. round earth. All I'm saying is that this investigation could be worthwhile...

 

26 minutes ago, Cepzeu said:

If we're talking about the practicality of me carrying out my day-to-day needs /surviving then it actually of little practicality to me because I'm not a GPS engineer who is required to take earths roundness into account.

You use GPS, no? You are part of a GLOBAL community? You rely on dozens of technogies based on the relative fact the earth is round. You travel? You wanna know how shit works? This is where it starts... Make an honest investigation of your reality. I'm making a case for you to dive into experience and out of concepts, but you seem insistent on building walls around yourself. See how you're just cutting yourself off from direct experience. Now, you can't investigate everything, so if you're fine at leaving it at "I don't know," that's perfectly OK. I'm not talking down at you, not forcing you to do anything. I'm just perceiving you as someone who'd LIKE to know about this issue, but is convinced that there is no way. All I'm saying is that there IS a way if you're interested. 

[now is forever]

5 hours ago, Cepzeu said:

@TheAvatarState I have to be honest and say that for me personally it's not important or practical to know what the shape is hahaha , I could live on a triangular rock and my day-to-day life wouldn't be different. I just started this post out of curiosity. 

But see again, from a skeptical point of view, to prove that the earth is round I would have to fly out to space and see it being round. Even 'signs' like the stars moving, or a ship disappearing on the horizon etc. are phenomena by themselves, and to combine a set of phenomena and call the earth round would be an inference rather than proof. The cross referencing works for every day existence but truthfully arriving at a consensus point from cross-referenced material is not itself truth, it is an inference of true phenomena. I'm not in any way doubting the practicality of science when it does things this way. I'm just getting down to the root of discerning truth form not-truth in my direct experience. Unless I fly to space and see a round earth, the best I can say is "here is a bunch of evidence that points to the earth being round, in truth I don't know whether it's round or not, but given this evidence I can infer that it probably is".

(Keep in mind I'm not advocating for round earth vs flat earth, I'm just using it as an example.)

 

if you would fly to the moon to see the earth you would probably think the earth was round or at least a little bit squeezed. but if you fly in a plane you would see no, it’s not really round its crinkled and formed like an endless bow... it’s not flat and not round it’s an infinite colored crinkled bow. i mean it’s so weird you could even ask a judge to decide on it by asking eyewitnesses or does the eyewitness not count anymore as of course the eyewitness is not me, then i don’t care about the observation of others at all anymore. there are things we would think we should not question anymore and still we need to, to understand others perspectives - but it is kind of difficult to navigate with closed eyes, i mean all three.

maybe all flat earthers could win a flight and being interviewed during the flight...

and also i guess it’s important to not show children any solar or earth models without satellites anymore. so they can have an experience.

Edited January 27, 2019 by now is forever

[Forestluv]

31 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

You non-dualists don't know if not knowing is the Truth? Am I right?

That would mean that.. since you don't know.. it COULD be possible that knowing is possible? 

What happens when those distinctions break down?

What if there was no distinction between "knowing" and "not knowing"? What might that BE like? 

Rather than spinning on intellectual wheels, perhaps practice self-inquiry of "What is knowing". During your meditations, sit in silence with the question. Don't go off on intellectual tangents. When knowing arises in your direct experience, observe it without trying to figure it out. What dynamics play out in your mind and body. Get curious, relax and observe.

It seems your mind is safer intellectualizing than simply being what is. I can relate, that dynamic often appears in my mind as well.

[Cepzeu]

@Serotoninluv

I just did this now and it appears to me that "knowing" is a word that we use to reinforce an idea in mind. the thought "I know ....." reinforces the mental model of whatever "....." is. For example, I know that if I touch the table in front of me it will feel like the texture of wood. But "knowing" and "texture of wood" are part of a "non-physical" space which feels different to the "physical" feeling associated with touching a wooden texture. The thought "wooden texture" is a symbol for the feeling of a wooden texture, but they have nothing in common. Like the word cat has nothing to do with the animal associated with that word. Thus it appears that thought is self-reinforcing, i.e. the word "know" is a symbol which reinforces "wooden texture" which is another symbol, both occurring in thought and not related to the phenomena they symbolise.

"Not-knowing" appears to be similar in the sense that it is a symbol. But this symbol reinforces symbols which are contextually different from the symbols that "knowing" reinforces but phenomenologically the same. I.e a thought arises: "I don't know if my mother is in the living room or the garage". Contextually, "garage", "living room", and "wooden texture" are different, but phenomenologically they are all symbols arising in mind, pointing to "things" that are not them ("cat" =/= the animal).

Experientially, I can use "knowing" as a thought symbol to confirm other phenomena. I can think: "I know that I can see the table" as I'm looking at the table, but again this thought is itself distinct from the visual perception of the table. However, both the visual perception and the thought occur in awareness of the two.

[Leo Gura]

On 1/27/2019 at 0:26 PM, Mikael89 said:

So..

You non-dualists don't know if not knowing is the Truth? Am I right?

You are wrong.

Not-Knowing is the Truth. Not-Knowing is an Absolute.

Quote

That would mean that.. since you don't know.. it COULD be possible that knowing is possible? 

Knowing is possible, but it is never the Truth.

Truth cannot be known, it must be not-known or Be-ed.

It is the in fact the case that you do not know what anything is. You've only managed to convince yourself that you know. For example, you do not know what a chair actually is. The situation is so bad that you don't even know what you are. What you have a false identifications and images, none of which is what those things actually are. A chair is not your image of a chair, and you are not your image of yourself.

All of your so-called knowledge is just images, not the actual thing itself. Take a look.

All knowledge is relative, never Absolute.

[now is forever]

@Cepzeu how does wood feel? like wooden texture? ah!