Can you admit this: "The only thing I know is nothing"

[Surya Deva]

You're speaking nonsense, now.


So what you're saying is that it has a meaning based on one's interpretation, but yet you claim that meaning doesn't exist. Nonsense.

Yep, because if meaning is not true for all, then something does not have meaning. Rather we impose our beliefs on it.


What I am getting at here is that on the level of reality were at we don't know anything. Yet, we have some intuitions, but these intuitions are like fragments of truth, and without the whole truth, they cannot be proven.
I believe definitely in all of the truths of my religion, but I am humble enough to admit that I don't know any of these.

In Vedanta there is a saying, "You either know everything or you know nothing" there is no in between. What do you think of this idea?

 

[Willamena]

Yep, because if meaning is not true for all, then something does not have meaning. Rather we impose our beliefs on it.

See, by my reasoning the meaning that is "not true for all," the meaning that is true to each, the meaning that we each can believe in, it exists. That is meaning. That's all it is. It doesn't have to pretend to be anything more in order to be meaning.

We can imagine it's something more, but that's superfluous.

In Vedanta there is a saying, "You either know everything or you know nothing" there is no in between. What do you think of this idea?

I think that in knowing nothing you know all you need to know about everything.

 

[Mister Emu]

I promised a rebuttal and here we go

You should be able to account for your knowledge for it to be valid. Otherwise it's just a belief.

"Should be able to" and "is required for" are two different statements, I agree that you should be able to, but that does not mean you must be able to There are people with severe communication problems, that does not mean they don't have knowledge

Do you know what a car is?

A mechanical automobile

So you can't even make a positive statement about the car existing. It may turn out there is nothing there at all, it was an illusion.

And yet, you would surely leap to safety if one of these possible "illusions" was barreling towards you.

As long as the possibility exists that the car is there and not there, one cannot have knowledge of the car.

Not true. Even if the car does not exist, you have knowledge of the illusion. Which is still knowledge.

This feeling could be pain. It is said that love hurts, so is that feeling pain? The criteria for identifying what is love and what is not seems to be entirely subjective and hence a matter of belief only.

Of course it is subjective. It is a feeling. That has nothing to do with the question though... whatever you label love, you have knowledge of it occuring when it does so. Even if we have two completely opposite meaning of love when it is experienced, we know that the underlying feeling we refer to with the word "love" has occured.

One might label the release of endorphins into the body as love. Does that mean everytime they are released one is feeling love? How does one measure if it is love one is experiencing. Again it is unknowable.

For the person who labels the release of endorphins love, he knows every time that it does so love has occured. Whatever is meant by the label "love" there is knowledge that it has occured.

Now I need to look at the meaning of all those words. Then the meaning of the meaning of the words that define those words and so on. There is still no knowledge just a pursuit of emptiness.

As I said before, you are too hung up on words. Language is a convention of symbols and their meanings, so yes, you go back until you find a word you share a common understanding on, and then work back until you understand what the other meant. I do this all the time with words I have not encountered before.

It is knowledge of present language convention. Even that is knowledge. Knowing that love means x to Person A is a type of knowledge.

Again, without being able to measure feeling, one cannot say what measure of feeling constitutes love. You said profound, how profound? What defines profound?

Sure one can, for oneself. I cannot say what constitutes love for you(unless you convey that to me), but I can for myself.

As it is subjective you cannot even be sure yourself of what it means.

I can be sure for myself what it means.

No we don't. If we did, I wouldn't be debating the proposition with you. There are plenty of people who don't believe love exists. It's another made up fiction.

I'm saying one knows what love means to one's self. Thus I know what love means to me. You know what it means to you.

There can be no common definition of what a subjective feeling is, because it cannot be measured. How can I know that my 'love' is the same as your 'love'?

While each instance of the feeling related by the word "love" is unique, they share a general enough base for there to be a common understanding, so that when I say love, even if you can't be 100% sure that I am refering to the same thing, most people can understand what I am trying to convey.

Here is an interesting idea from Krisna: The physical world is a plane of suffeing. There is no love here, just pain. What do you think of that idea?

I'd have to know what Krisna meant by love, but for myself it is untrue, as I have felt the love of family and God.

In Vedanta there is a saying, "You either know everything or you know nothing" there is no in between. What do you think of this idea?

Not much, I find it similar to saying "You can solve all mathematical equations or you can solve none", or "You are a Superstar NFL player or you do not know how to play at all". Of course there are middle grounds, there are middle grounds in almost everything...

 

[Surya Deva]

I promised a rebuttal and here we go

There are people with severe communication problems, that does not mean they don't have knowledge

Indeed, it also means that they don't necessarily have knowledge.

For me to know you have knowledge you need to express it.

A mechanical automobile

That can be a motorcycle, a scooter. It does not have to be a car. Try again

And yet, you would surely leap to safety if one of these possible "illusions" was barreling towards you.

That is because I belive in the illusion.

Not true. Even if the car does not exist, you have knowledge of the illusion. Which is still knowledge.

Rather, I have knowledge that I have no knowledge.

Of course it is subjective. It is a feeling. That has nothing to do with the question though... whatever you label love, you have knowledge of it occuring when it does so. Even if we have two completely opposite meaning of love when it is experienced, we know that the underlying feeling we refer to with the word "love" has occured.

You are assuming that what you felt before that you called love, has happend again. You are also assuming that you are the same person that experienced that love before. You are also assuming that what has happened to you is actually love.

So there is no knowledge there; only doubt.

For the person who labels the release of endorphins love, he knows every time that it does so love has occured. Whatever is meant by the label "love" there is knowledge that it has occured.

Well there is no way for a person to subjectively count the no of endorphins released to know love has happened. Nor is there anyway to know that the release of endorphins has any connection to the feeling of 'love' ?

As I said before, you are too hung up on words. Language is a convention of symbols and their meanings, so yes, you go back until you find a word you share a common understanding on, and then work back until you understand what the other meant. I do this all the time with words I have not encountered before.

Even words we know we can't give an account of. When you ask me what does fast mean, I respond it means quick. Then you ask me what quick means, I respond it means rapid and so on.

Have you heard of deconstructionism?

It is knowledge of present language convention. Even that is knowledge. Knowing that love means x to Person A is a type of knowledge.

Deconstructionism applies again.

Sure one can, for oneself. I cannot say what constitutes love for you(unless you convey that to me), but I can for myself.


I can be sure for myself what it means.

Or maybe you don't know the meaning either? Maybe the meaning changes every moment. Can you be 100% you know the meaning of love? I don't think so.

One cannot even be sure that they are the same person the next moment...

I'm saying one knows what love means to one's self. Thus I know what love means to me. You know what it means to you.

Same as above.

While each instance of the feeling related by the word "love" is unique, they share a general enough base for there to be a common understanding, so that when I say love, even if you can't be 100% sure that I am refering to the same thing, most people can understand what I am trying to convey.

There cannot be a common understanding. Everybodies feelings are private. You have no idea what love means to me, I have no idea what love means to you. Nor can I, Suraj, know what love really means to me.

I'd have to know what Krisna meant by love, but for myself it is untrue, as I have felt the love of family and God.

Krishna means that this wordly plane, no matter how good it can get, is a realm of suffering. The real happiness is when one is liberated and does not have to come back here. So anything we call love or happiness here is really just pain.

Just as one who self mutilates convines themselves it is pleasure, but really it is just pain, likewise we mistake pleasure in this world for pain.

Not much, I find it similar to saying "You can solve all mathematical equations or you can solve none", or "You are a Superstar NFL player or you do not know how to play at all". Of course there are middle grounds, there are middle grounds in almost everything...

It's about knowledge. The correct way of representing it would be you either know all of maths or you know none of it. There is no room for any middle ground as Godel proves. All other systems of maths are incomplete, they do not produce any real knowledge. The same applies to all systems of logic; all scientific systems.

You really should read Hume as well. We know nothing. It is true. We simply have to be humble enough to accept that.

The seeker who seeks without claiming knowledge will find what they seek, else you will find only what you think about what you are seeking, but never the thing itself.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I was watching the Hindu religious channel Aastha on Sky TV(telecast free with lots of English language programming, so if you have Sky, check it outsometime)

The Guru giving the discourse said something really eye-opening for me.

He asked that what is that we religious/spiritual people want? The answer is we want heaven, we want enlightenment, we want god. We want to know what it is like.

He then says that we are seekers and goes onto define a seeker. What is a seeker? A seeker is one who has an attitude to seek. A seeker being the one that is seeking by definition doesn't know anything. Yet, many who claim to be seekers, seek with preknowledge on what they seek. Then they are not really seekers.

A seeker is one who can accept whole heartedly that he doesn't known a damn about god, heaven and reality

No matter how much philosophy you read, how many Vedas, Qurans and Bibles you read. The truth is in the end you don't know anything.

Can you admit this about your religion? Can you actually admit you don't know anything about the other world? Are you a seeker?

You can't get the reward from merciful God if he is displeased with your deeds.

 

[UnityNow101]

If you begin with the insight that you indeed know nothing, then you can search with a mind that is clear of assumptions and conclusions. If you begin your "search" with the assumption that what you believe to be the case is true, are you truly searching, or are you simply relying on the old patterns and conditioning to influence your reasoning? If you rid yourself of your supposed knowledge of the unknown(God) at every moment and set aside the assumptions given to you by somebody else, then you are mentally free to search with a clear and unbiased mind. This is an extremely hard task because we are all so conditioned by our surroundings and our upbringings that we cling to ideas and opinions for comfort out of the fear of the unknown...