Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Would knowledge be of any less significance if it were delivered by someone who doesn't exist?
It's ALL true.
But which parts of it matter?
We should make this a thing, let's everyone pose questions that no one can answer directly, but only through another question.
Why is life so hard?!
Why can't people speak plain English?!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Did the things that happened in CC's books really happen or were they parables?!
Same question but about the bible!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Same question but about politics and government!
Is there anything real left in our world or is it all ONE BIG COVERUP BY THE MASTERMIND HIMSELF?!
how do I know?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Kaomea wrote:
This is a good start from JJ, "This seems to invite the question "Does putting energy into awareness inform us of truth or create it?" If I put enough energy into the awareness that my grandma is actually still alive, can I make that true? Note that I'm talking about putting energy into the awareness of this, not putting energy into believing it."
You wouldn't need to put energy into this statement to make it true. It already is true. I see what you mean, but you're assuming she has died. That is a true assumption, but that is a limiting assumption because that is not the only assumption to be had. It's ignorant to assume she is only dead.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, she is both dead and alive at the same time and it isn't about my putting energy into the awareness to "make it true" but rather to shift myself where I can see that it is true. Is that about right?
If the universe really is as flexible as all that, it obsoletes both logic and reason as tools for determining truth. Perhaps they're still good tools for focusing awareness though.
The question remains how to test all of this. If I shift to see any people that I previously believed were dead, and succeed, maybe I'm only deceiving myself. Is there a way to "know" the truth of this?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Kaomea wrote:
Would knowledge be of any less significance if it were delivered by someone who doesn't exist?
The idea that others don't exist is still one I have trouble with even as an idea. You might not be who I think you are, but it's hard to imagine that you and everyone else doesn't really exist. That you're not perceiving anything or experiencing anything. It's not far removed from imagining that I really don't exist, and how can *I* imagine my own non-existence?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Julio Juliopolis wrote:
Kaomea wrote:
Would knowledge be of any less significance if it were delivered by someone who doesn't exist?
The idea that others don't exist is still one I have trouble with even as an idea. You might not be who I think you are, but it's hard to imagine that you and everyone else doesn't really exist. That you're not perceiving anything or experiencing anything. It's not far removed from imagining that I really don't exist, and how can *I* imagine my own non-existence?
Ok backtrack. Look at the prompt again.
An artificial intelligence can provide knowledge and doesn't exist. It exists as a machine. But it's not self aware in ways society considers self awareness.
We, as humans, all exist.
Some things exist outside that classification.
What do we do with knowledge received from things that don't exist? Things that are illogical and things we barely comprehend, do we just pretend those things don't exist and their knowledge is void of any validity?
Humans exist, let's set that premise. Otherwise it all turns to sht.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Julio Juliopolis wrote:
Kaomea wrote:
This is a good start from JJ, "This seems to invite the question "Does putting energy into awareness inform us of truth or create it?" If I put enough energy into the awareness that my grandma is actually still alive, can I make that true? Note that I'm talking about putting energy into the awareness of this, not putting energy into believing it."
You wouldn't need to put energy into this statement to make it true. It already is true. I see what you mean, but you're assuming she has died. That is a true assumption, but that is a limiting assumption because that is not the only assumption to be had. It's ignorant to assume she is only dead.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, she is both dead and alive at the same time and it isn't about my putting energy into the awareness to "make it true" but rather to shift myself where I can see that it is true. Is that about right?
If the universe really is as flexible as all that, it obsoletes both logic and reason as tools for determining truth. Perhaps they're still good tools for focusing awareness though.
The question remains how to test all of this. If I shift to see any people that I previously believed were dead, and succeed, maybe I'm only deceiving myself. Is there a way to "know" the truth of this?
Yes, the goal is to shift the perspective to see dual realities. Alive and dead. Not just a blind belief, but belief built from silent knowledge. This all sounds like horse sht and I'm sorry I can't give you a simpler explanation. My English not that good :/ I don't know how to explain it to have it make sense to you.
Yes, the universe is flexible. Yes, logic and reason do become obsolete at a certain point. Most don't reach that point.
Validating an experience or belief occurs when it's a shared experience. If we dream of someone, it's not validated as a shared dream until our dreaming partner verifies the experience. Otherwise, it's just a solo experience and solo experiences are hallucinations it shouldn't actually matter what is "true" or "real" so long as you have a way to meet the experience. If you want to prove something is real, it needs to have a sharing aspect to it. Otherwise, maybe let go of having to decide whether something is real. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, defining it may not be necessary.
Unless you're being hunted by a league of assassins. Then maybe you want proof. I dunno. Decide what you're okay with and what your boundaries are. Wiggle those around until you feel good.
Sometimes, when we stop defining things and move with the flow, it can be magical. I mean, we can put our foot down and fight it tooth and nail, and it's still going to be magical. Either way it's happening. We get to choose how comfortable the ride is, because we're all being taken for a ride
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Well, regarding my dead grandmother, she may or may not exist in some form. However, I cant choose to bring her back. I can only intend for myself. That seems to be true for all energy generating entities. I can make a shared intent with someone, but I trust my own perception when dreaming and don't need confirmations. Years ago I did seek that. Still, I certainly don't trust my waking perception!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Didn't we all learn from the books that truth and perception are a subject of the assemblage position?
Maybe I've misunderstood him though, english is not my native language.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Man I'm having a blast. Take a look at this.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/thing ... .rieQwD50q
We should write a blog post to clash head vs. head and challenge the authors of the one above explaining why they're wrong and we're right!
I mean come on Vikings didn't have horns on their helmets? I smell bullshit.
They shall go down!
Here's my argument.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I kindly ask you all to re-read your posts on this thread and any other thread. You can clearly see that you know a lot of stuff or maybe you're just pretending to know? You tell me..
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
There's two sides to everything what's in-between is a blank canvas, potential, and the place from where we should be making our decisions. As we all may know the same word also can be used in various ways with different meanings and one may perceive, see or understand a thing much differently than another.
Now whether it us forming the world with our knowledge or the world is already formed and we're learning about it is yet another blade with two edges. It is once again a choice to be made and a position to be aligned. As Kao said people believe they're right from their own points of view no matter what they do so if you choose to align one of the positions and say that's the ultimate truth then so will be it in your perception and experience that's part of the freedom the knowledge from the books if learned directly provides us with (ability to choose and stay put or discard the choice and make a new one or re-make an old one but consciously). The teachings show that there is time for one position and time for another position. They show us that there is a time to be fluid and a time to retain cohesion in particular positions. Kao clearly explained that in the thread with warfcat where he asks about circumstances (being adaptable).
It would be ignorant to say that you know something for sure but it would also be ignorant not to take into account the variables in play and assess the situation and the most probable outcome. It's not that easy to take into account every variable that may present itself (predict the future) and know exactly what the outcome of an action would be, however, I can most definitely say that I know that if I do a certain thing a certain thing will happen unless some outside influence exerts force on the outcome.
A simple example is a forest fire if nothing prevents the fire it will spread. That is just how fire works in this reality and if you don't agree with me that's fine. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and so am I.
This is what people say common knowledge is. We posses a lot of common knowledge or information or inventory or whatever way you decide to call it or define it. It is what it is. Common knowledge is generally agreed upon and we have all experienced it at one point or another not just the fact that we know it but the effects of it as well. It is also common knowledge for people interested in Castaneda's legacy to know what the descriptions and definitions of the tonal and the nagual are for example. This however does not mean that we know the nagual directly. And after all the nagual is not to be known and described or put in words it's to be experienced. That is why Don Juan spurred Castaneda into action so he can stop rambling and see/know directly. That does not mean that common knowledge is not subject to change or is constant. Nothing is constant.
There are other forms of knowledge such as abstract knowledge (I just made up that term by the way so if it interferes with one of yours I am sure we can find a better word that suits all of us). That's quite different than other types of knowledge and its to be known directly not through the intervention of language. That is what I was talking about when I was trying to explain that I don't blindly believe in knowledge and that in order to really know the abstract (which is Dok's main desired topic for this thread) I must (empirically) experience it for myself otherwise I'd just be ventilating my mouth if I were to try to understand it through words...
And another thing is that if I already believe something to be true (like the possibility of surviving a cliff jump) I wouldn't have the same drive to find out for myself as I would have if I were skeptical towards the idea and decided to put it to the test. Note that I'd be skeptical but still put it to the test not discard it or disbelieve it. For that as an example (extending my second paragraph) assuming (blindly) that CC survived a cliff jump how many years of warriorship did he have to go through and how many experiences with the abstract did he have directly before he was even deemed ready for a jump like that? Taking that into account along with the common knowledge associated with people falling off of huge heights as just two of the variables and comparing them to my current state of being and level of experience I can say that I know what will happen to me if I jump off a rock face (unless...).
Don Juan
The crux of our difficulty in going back to the abstract is our refusal to accept that we can know without words or even without thoughts. Knowledge and language are separate.
And in our misunderstanding the crux is that I don't define knowledge as only abstract I simply have yet another category for it instead of using the word inventory.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Maybe words are information and knowledge is something else. The mind/flyer considers information to be the same as knowledge. That might be because the mind likes control. It avoids the abstract and the unknown like the plague! For me, knowledge is power. Information is a description. Everything we express here is a description. But, a description is not the same as knowledge! I can describe what coffee tastes like, but that's a lot different than tasting coffee. So my idea here is that knowing contains no information. Knowing is not a description. We are using the mind here to attempt to describe something outside it's boundaries.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
We're talking about the same thing and I can't agree with you more that's what I explained above I just used the same word defined by two categories which made it different in my view.
Also why would you ask us what we know when you now say that it can't even be described with words? I don't understand.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
We can describe anything We have experienced with words. That doesn't make it knowing. Im just separating the description from the act.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
So what should I say instead of "I know what name I've been given when I was born."?
I haven't really experienced that I have it stored as information because someone else did it and I learned it overtime. If I understand correctly that means that I don't know my name but the person who named me does because he committed the act of naming me.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Word games! A name is a description. Words are descriptions.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
DoktorGreen wrote:
Word games! A name is a description. Words are descriptions.
Yeah, I've been repeating that since quite a while too. I'm glad we agree.
And yet I don't understand do I or do I not know my name?
Do I say I know a description or what do I say?
What is the word I use to replace those above when I want to express that I have that information stored in my erm information base or inventory? That's all I'm trying to understand so we can both avoid confusion.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Oh man.. You keep repeating things I was never arguing with you about...
You may not be confused but I am although I don't think you've understood what I'm trying to say and why I'm asking my question.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
You say to know is an act of power and not having information and descriptions stored in your inventory.
So in effect I can't say I know my name as I'm describing information I have stored...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I think we'll know what you mean if you say " I know my name." What I'm wondering is... What can we be sure of without relying on input from the mind?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I thought so too, however, that doesn't fit in your description of to know at all. In essence you're saying that depending on the context I'll be understood if I say "I know information" but I don't really know it. So you can see the contradiction and what I explained about words having several meanings.
And what can we be sure of? Probably what we've gained through acting/experience (power as you say). As an example Don Juan was sure that the world revolved around intent because he claimed that knowledge as power through his acting. That's why I put emphasis on experiencing for yourself in order to know. So in this context knowledge is not linked to language or words as we agreed already.
Our tonal is convinced with reasons and our nagual with actions. That way one strengthens the other.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
By the way information in the tonal world is power as well albeit once again a different kind (in a different category) than the power in topic here.
You can also take a look at Edward Snowden too. Citizenfour.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Information in the right hands creates magic.
Information in the wrong hands creates chaos.
When we're lucky we experience magical chaos.
The reality is we live a world we struggle to understand. We have expectations that are unrealistic because we're ignorant due to limited transparency. There are both selfless and selfish individuals and organizations in existence.
What else is there to say? :/
|
