Not knowing

[Nahm]

23 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Nahm So you are going to boil all down to there not being a "separate self"?  Really? 

Ok. Not so holistic perspective. 

You are a separate self. You. You. You. YOU. Who am I talking to right now? 

It’s precisely perfectly whole. So perfect it seems like parts. 

23 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The body-mind complex is a self. 

I think we talked about it last year.. It depends on how you Define the self. If you define it as a unicorn then it does not exist. If you define it as the body mind.. Then it does exist. 

Not knowing is not contingent on knowing. 

23 minutes ago, Someone here said:

It's not entirely correct to say that there is no separate self at all... It's true only from a certain relative point of view. 

Truth isn’t contingent on perspective. 

23 minutes ago, Someone here said:

However.. Of course in the relative domain there are highly conscious people and ignorant ones. 

That’s a concept. Two places you’ve not yet been, the relative domain and Oz. 

23 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I'm not going to Learn about enlightenment from a  fucking pornstar for example.

Your loss my man. 

23 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Only from the people who are enlightened.  

I haven't met you in real life but I assume that you are more spiritually developed than me. But that's not a safe assumption after all. 

Yeah but what if there aren’t separate selves? 

[Someone here]

Whatever man this isn't going anywhere.  

[Javfly33]

@Nahm not knowing it's the same as nothingness?

 

[Nahm]

@Javfly33

You’re asking about your concepts. It’s not them. 

[Nahm]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Whatever man this isn't going anywhere.  

[Javfly33]

Just now, Nahm said:

@Javfly33

You’re asking about your concepts. It’s not them. 

Yes, I was going to add up that they are both concepts so they are not it. 

But... You must suspect what I meant when I asked you the question...

[Someone here]

@Javfly33 not knowing is your natural default state.  You don't actually  know anything about anything. You are just in denial about it. 

[Javfly33]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

@Javfly33 not knowing is your natural default state.  You don't actually  know anything about anything. You are just in denial about it. 

Yes, I mean I know the relative. But what if the relative is a lie? I agree.

I mean you can not ever know the Now. 

What if there is this Nothing Not Knowing xDouble Sandwich Nothing with extra Nothing for Ever?

??

[Tim R]

I'm sorry what is this thread about again? 

[Someone here]

31 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

 I mean I know the relative. 

No. Even that can be Deconstructed. 

[Javfly33]

15 minutes ago, Someone here said:

No. Even that can be Deconstructed. 

@Someone here What is "deconstructed"?

[WaveInTheOcean]

The mind can speak -- it knows so little.

The heart cannot speak -- it knows too much.

(- Osho, loosely)

[Javfly33]

@WaveInTheOcean "The mind speaks but knows nothing, the heart can't speak but knows everything". I think it was that what he said. 

[Someone here]

17 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

@Someone here What is "deconstructed"?

That It can refuted. Debunked. Shown to be false. 

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Someone here said:

That It can refuted. Debunked. Shown to be false. 

I prefer "recontextualized".

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I prefer "recontextualized".

How about decontextualized? 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

How about decontextualized? 

Everything exists relative to an interpretive framework; a context. The context is never removed, only changed

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Everything exists relative to an interpretive framework; a context. The context is never removed, only changed

Oh and you know that don't you? 

I'm talking about a radical level of not knowing. It's a level of not knowing so big that it feels like you're losing your mind and you cannot be sure about an anything. 

IMO your still attached to the mind and concepts. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Oh and you know that don't you? 

That is your context, your interpretative framework, not mine. All I'm doing is that I'm providing a context using language. <- This is also a context I'm providing using language.

Now, if you ask "do you know that?", I will answer "All I'm doing is that I'm providing a context using language". It's more like saying "I'm speaking" than saying "I know". One is an action, a relative manifestation, another is a statement about an absolute. I make no such statement. All talk is relational. Relationships; the dance between perspectives; between subjects, objects, frameworks, contexts. -->this is not absolute<--

 

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

I'm talking about a radical level of not knowing. It's a level of not knowing so big that it feels like you're losing your mind and you cannot be sure about an anything. 

Oh trust me, I've been there. The only way out is compromise: speak because you're spoken to, not because you understand.

 

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

IMO your still attached to the mind and concepts. 

Is the use of mind and concepts evidence of the attachment to said things?

[Someone here]

@Carl-Richard what is the context of existence as a whole? What is it's position? Where is it located?