Do we really know nothing?

[Someone here]

I'll start by trying to move  from a state of "knowing nothing" to knowing something by explaining that it's wrong that  you know nothing . It's false that you "literally" know nothing. You may know less than you want to know, but if you really "literally" knew nothing, you wouldn't have been able to read this post . Clearly, you understand English grammar and vocabulary, how to operate a computer, how to read etc. My guess is you also know how to dress yourself, how to brush your teeth, and how to tie your shoes.

So i want to distinguish between two types of knowledge.  Knowledge at the 1st order and knowledge at the 2nd order .knowledge at the first order is at the level of being .and we don't know anything in that domain .we just observe things and experience them .but we don't know what they are existentially. So for example you can experience the sun..you can look at it ...you can read thousands of science textbooks describing the sun and you still won't know what it is at the level of being. And that is simply because reality is irreducibley mystical and unknown. 

However that doesn't mean we don't know relative stuff .like we know scientifically how big the sun is ..it's mass..it's gravitational pull on the earth and so forth .but we don't know what the sun is existentially.

So it's helpful to distinguish between these two. To strike the perfect balance between thinking you know too much or thinking you know nothing .the truth is you are in the middle point between these two extremes.

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Someone here

[Someone here]

 

this video perfectly explains everything about knowing vs not knowing. And the distinction between knowing at the level of being vs relative knowing. 

[Vibroverse]

Imagine you're having a dream, and in the dream you are in another universe, and you are in a class where a professor is teaching you about some astronomical facts about that universe, or maybe a language that is spoken in one world in that universe.

And when you learn some information in that world, about that world, do you really learn something which you did not know before, or is it more like you realizing something that already has been a part of your consciousness which you were not aware of before?

Sometimes I think that, in a sense, this might be what evolution of consciousness is like. You the infinite consciousness are like the totality of all possible information in and of existence, but you're experiencing a spacetime reality. 

So, in that perspective, you're actually like an architect who is discovering yourself when you learn something new, in a sense like what Socrates thought mathematics to be, where he was just being a midwife for the awareness of knowledges that already were within. 

 

[Vibroverse]

And even more than that, imagine that you are that professor himself in the dream where you have, in your dream history and memory, learned about those subjects before, and now you are a master of those subjects. 

I think we, at the ultimate level, the infinite consciousness that contains all possible information and worlds, however, here we are at the relative level where we experience the mode of a process in time and space. 

Of course, the ultimate knowledge of being itself is a mystery, in a sense, by its nature in all the possible worlds, for existence is its own cause, so it cannot be "known", in that sense, for it is the very knowing itself, it is the very beingness of existence. 

But, for some reason, on the relative level of knowledge and beingness, there is a certain form of a pattern in the unfolding of reality, and maybe it is a good and intentional thing from the ultimate level consciousness. 

Edited August 21, 2022 by Vibroverse

[Someone here]

@Vibroverse are you trying to say that there is a universal subconscious mind that contains all the knowledge about all things like the idea of the Akashic records?

But then i ask you again the same thing we've debated last week ..how to access this unlimited knowledge?  It must be somewhere right ? What exactly is preventing us from becoming totally omniscient? 

Honestly, the realization of how little I knew hit me like a wall when I started my first year of college. I was so clueless about so much.. and the realization of how much there was to learn flooded into my mind and made me feel so small and insignificant.

But this realization was also, honestly, thrilling. I had a seemingly unlimited amount of awesome shit I could learn and so much of it was fascinating.

Of course, I could never dream of learning anything more than a fraction of the knowledge that exists.. but still, a lifetime of learning was something I realized could happen and I was excited 

[TheOneReborn]

I'm struggling with this right now. How can we know anything at all? Even "knowing" itself seems like a false concept. Moment to moment there is only "conciousness of" the world and self (which are evidently one). 

If someone were to ask me is the moon real?

I feel like saying "well in typical relative sense, sure I guess"

"But in an absolute sense....uhhhh I....uhhh don't even know what you're really asking" 

[Vibroverse]

32 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Vibroverse are you trying to say that there is a universal subconscious mind that contains all the knowledge about all things like the idea of the Akashic records?

But then i ask you again the same thing we've debated last week ..how to access this unlimited knowledge?  It must be somewhere right ? What exactly is preventing us from becoming totally omniscient? 

Honestly, the realization of how little I knew hit me like a wall when I started my first year of college. I was so clueless about so much.. and the realization of how much there was to learn flooded into my mind and made me feel so small and insignificant.

But this realization was also, honestly, thrilling. I had a seemingly unlimited amount of awesome shit I could learn and so much of it was fascinating.

Of course, I could never dream of learning anything more than a fraction of the knowledge that exists.. but still, a lifetime of learning was something I realized could happen and I was excited 

I love your questions, your mind seems to be similar to my mind, in a sense. I'm thinking about the nature of learning, and whether it is happening as a result of the same process of achieving, creating, manifesting, receiving other things, other more tangible things, and I think the answer might be yes. 

And if so, then we need to find the intrinsic essence of that which is to be learned, and as you said, I think it can be a fun and exciting experience really, for it is, then, the same process of being, and then it is just that it is being adjusted to a different modality of being. 

That's, in my opinion, the point where the idea of surrendering to yourself can be helpful, for otherwise it will be an experience of some form of pain, and it will not be a satisfying journey for you. I think that's where being makes itself evolved to another modality of being, but it has its own intrinsic dynamics. 

That's, I guess, we, in a sense, come to the question of "how can the one appear as many", and that I guess is the mystery that discovers itself as the process, and that itself, in a sense, might be what a process even is. It is like the inexplicable is being itself, but it cannot explain how it even is able to be itself. 

Well, that might be something, by its nature that can never be understood, but the question, perhaps, is not about understanding it, but getting closer and closer to the concept of being about understanding it, and that might be the very definition of science itself. 

I think the most important thing that we forget in the process is that there is a certain order, a certain, as the ancient Greeks called it, Logos, a pattern of being that calls itself towards itself, and that is the dynamic of being that is being understood by realizing that it cannot ever be understood, for it is the very idea of being the missing link itself. 

And being is knowing itself through itself, perhaps, without even knowing that it is knowing itself through itself, and that very thing, in a sense, might be the very cause of duality, the öne becoming the many. 

[Vibroverse]

5 minutes ago, TheOneReborn said:

I'm struggling with this right now. How can we know anything at all? Even "knowing" itself seems like a false concept. Moment to moment there is only "conciousness of" the world and self (which are evidently one). 

If someone were to ask me is the moon real?

I feel like saying "well in typical relative sense, sure I guess"

"But in an absolute sense....uhhhh I....uhhh don't even know what you're really asking" 

Let alone what the question is referring to, you can even ask whether that question itself is real or not, and luckily we can never get there, at least for now, haha. 

[Inliytened1]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

I'll start by trying to move  from a state of "knowing nothing" to knowing something by explaining that it's wrong that  you know nothing . It's false that you "literally" know nothing. You may know less than you want to know, but if you really "literally" knew nothing, you wouldn't have been able to read this post . Clearly, you understand English grammar and vocabulary, how to operate a computer, how to read etc. My guess is you also know how to dress yourself, how to brush your teeth, and how to tie your shoes.

So i want to distuingh between two types of knowledge.  Knowledge at the 1st order and knowledge at the 2nd order .knowledge at the first order is at the level of being .and we don't know anything in that domain .we just observe things and experience them .but we don't know what they are existentially. So for example you can experience the sun..you can look at it ...you can read thousands of science textbooks describing the sun and you still won't know what it is at the level of being. And that is simply because reality is irreducibley mystical and unknown. 

However that doesn't mean we don't know relative stuff .like we know scientifically how big the sun is ..it's mass..it's gravitational pull on the earth and so forth .but we don't know what the sun is existentially.

So it's helpful to distuingh between these two. To strike the perfect balance between thinking you know too much or thinking you know nothing .the truth is you are in the middle point between these two extremes.

 

No Mind and Infinite Mind are One.  We have been telling you this from the beginning.  Zero is Infinity.   It's two sides of a coin.   You have watched Leo's personal path and you have watched him embrace no mind vs Infinite Mind.  But you now see that it is one.  Infinite Mind or omniscience is indeed found in quieting the mind.   But that is only because ultimately they are one.

[Someone here]

23 minutes ago, TheOneReborn said:

I'm struggling with this right now. How can we know anything at all? Even "knowing" itself seems like a false concept. Moment to moment there is only "conciousness of" the world and self (which are evidently one). 

If someone were to ask me is the moon real?

I feel like saying "well in typical relative sense, sure I guess"

"But in an absolute sense....uhhhh I....uhhh don't even know what you're really asking" 

? lol.  I know exactly what you mean and can relate to that .

It's like in one hand everything is what it is..so it's just obvious. But on the other hand everything is so mysterious and alien to us that we literally have no clue what anything is.

We only believe, we really don’t know what is true. The sense of Knowing is only a product of Faith.

By belief, i do not mean only for religious beliefs. Belief is more common than you think. Believing is a sign that our senses is interacting with the world. The perception cannot interact without believing.

We are constantly choosing what to believe, we are constantly choosing the idea that makes the most sense to us. We have a list of conditions in our brain that helps us to decide what to believe.

That list contents the knowledge we have learnt, and the things we have learnt is not necessary truthful.

Do we really know the knowledge we have gained from our observations?

Have you doubted your own knowledge?

Why do you believe your senses while you are observing?

Could your senses be lying to you?

By only believing in your senses is already an act of faith. We see it, we believe it, and we know it.

What we know is what we believe, it is our perception that is interacting with the world. The perception cannot reach what has not been touched by it, we cannot know what is beyond. What we have known is only a belief.

[Someone here]

@Vibroverse @Inliytened1

My main point in this thread is that we know plenty, but there’s plenty more we don’t know, that’s what makes life interesting.

There is a vast amount of stuff to know, it’s impossible to know everything, but be wary of anyone who says we know nothing.

Of course we know things, if a tiger is eating you, you’ll know it. If someone asks you what two plus two is, you know the answer. If someone asks you if you exist, you know you do.

Many things we know are backed up by many sources of evidence, that’s what makes Science a powerful knowing system. Sure sometimes it’s mistaken, sure the edges at any moment in time can dip into philosophy, sure sometimes tweaks need to be made, but it’s a damn fine way of knowing and knowing for sure.

[Breakingthewall]

we know everything. we know that we are, we know that we are eternal, we know that we have no limit. that is all. the rest are unimportant details

[Carl-Richard]

Second-order knowledge is inferential (from premises to conclusions) and probabilistic (not 100% certain), and that's ok

[Vibroverse]

26 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Vibroverse @Inliytened1

My main point in this thread is that we know plenty, but there’s plenty more we don’t know, that’s what makes life interesting.

There is a vast amount of stuff to know, it’s impossible to know everything, but be wary of anyone who says we know nothing.

Of course we know things, if a tiger is eating you, you’ll know it. If someone asks you what two plus two is, you know the answer. If someone asks you if you exist, you know you do.

Many things we know are backed up by many sources of evidence, that’s what makes Science a powerful knowing system. Sure sometimes it’s mistaken, sure the edges at any moment in time can dip into philosophy, sure sometimes tweaks need to be made, but it’s a damn fine way of knowing and knowing for sure.

 

Yes, we know what we know and we don't know what we don't know. We, I think, have a hard time with accepting where we are, and our ability to think gives us the power to make anything abstract. We know of things, but another question that interests me is what does knowing something means at all. What do we mean when we say we know something. Do we know something that is external to us, or do we know something that is not. 

Now, of course there is a certain mode of being, if we try to deny that, we run the risk of fooling ourselves. The reality has a certain mode of being, and trying to deny that actually is trying to deny yourself. However, the question is what is the limits of knowledge and why knowledge is a thing that is making itself a being. What is, for instance, the experience of moving from this moment to the next moment. 

The mind has a certain mode of being, it has a certain pattern, and when it learns something new, for instance, when it molds itself into a form that it was not before, is it happening as a natural unfolding of being. That's one of my questions in regards to the duality that we call knowledge. What is the mechanism that underlies the process of moving from one moment to the next moment, for instance. 

And that leads me to the paradoxes of Zeno, where we are thinking of the idea of moving from one moment to the next moment to be an illusion, and it makes sense in a certain sense that experience might be unfolding within itself, but it creates a new form of continuity, and therefore I say continuity probably is an illusion from which we cannot run, in a sense. 

And that's where I feel like anything that we can objectively refer to, or suggest the existence of in through some objective form, like through language, is not the point to start, or even end, this experience of the process of understanding the experience, for it meets itself in this point in all its journeys that are "away" from its own form, or mode, of being. 

That might, in a sense, be the process of the creation of worlds, that existence already is the ability of forming and creating itself, and knowing it might, in that sense, necessitates not just knowing it, but being it, and understanding that it is the experience, or the experiencelessness, of being it. 

[VeganAwake]

7 hours ago, Vibroverse said:

Yes, we know what we know and we don't know what we don't know. We, I think, have a hard time with accepting where we are, and our ability to think gives us the power to make anything abstract. We know of things, but another question that interests me is what does knowing something means at all. What do we mean when we say we know something. Do we know something that is external to us, or do we know something that is not. 

Now, of course there is a certain mode of being, if we try to deny that, we run the risk of fooling ourselves. The reality has a certain mode of being, and trying to deny that actually is trying to deny yourself. However, the question is what is the limits of knowledge and why knowledge is a thing that is making itself a being. What is, for instance, the experience of moving from this moment to the next moment. 

The mind has a certain mode of being, it has a certain pattern, and when it learns something new, for instance, when it molds itself into a form that it was not before, is it happening as a natural unfolding of being. That's one of my questions in regards to the duality that we call knowledge. What is the mechanism that underlies the process of moving from one moment to the next moment, for instance. 

And that leads me to the paradoxes of Zeno, where we are thinking of the idea of moving from one moment to the next moment to be an illusion, and it makes sense in a certain sense that experience might be unfolding within itself, but it creates a new form of continuity, and therefore I say continuity probably is an illusion from which we cannot run, in a sense. 

And that's where I feel like anything that we can objectively refer to, or suggest the existence of in through some objective form, like through language, is not the point to start, or even end, this experience of the process of understanding the experience, for it meets itself in this point in all its journeys that are "away" from its own form, or mode, of being. 

That might, in a sense, be the process of the creation of worlds, that existence already is the ability of forming and creating itself, and knowing it might, in that sense, necessitates not just knowing it, but being it, and understanding that it is the experience, or the experiencelessness, of being it. 

❤ 

[gettoefl]

19 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

No Mind and Infinite Mind are One.  We have been telling you this from the beginning.  Zero is Infinity.   It's two sides of a coin.   You have watched Leo's personal path and you have watched him embrace no mind vs Infinite Mind.  But you now see that it is one.  Infinite Mind or omniscience is indeed found in quieting the mind.   But that is only because ultimately they are one.

leo has not connected these two dots, in fact as far as i can tell, he disparages the quieting the mind which leads to no mind; he champions what one might call the ever ongoing expansiveness of consciousness and the journey exploring this

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

leo has not connected these two dots, in fact as far as i can tell, he disparages the quieting the mind which leads to no mind; he champions what one might call the ever ongoing expansiveness of consciousness and the journey exploring this

I think he has finally started to.  That is why he put the no mind video out. You have to remember this is a guy who was gifted with the mind but not with spirituality.  He spoke of Truth long before he ever realized it himself. 

[gettoefl]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I think he has finally started to.  That is why he put the no mind video out. You have to remember this is a guy who was gifted with the mind but not with spirituality.  He spoke of Truth long before he ever realized it himself. 

he may be softening but he still buddhist bashes on the regular even in his latest video and that is what we are talking about no?

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, gettoefl said:

he may be softening but he still buddhist bashes on the regular even in his latest video and that is what we are talking about no?

Yeah.  I don't like the Buddha bashing because honestly no self is what you realize and that is founded in Buddhism.  Buddhism is awakening.   Period. 

[gettoefl]

22 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yeah.  I don't like the Buddha bashing because honestly no self is what you realize and that is founded in Buddhism.  Buddhism is awakening.   Period. 

matches what i experience too, thanks