|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Dec 26, 2007 07:38
The most contencious issue here is that of "knowing".
"You just believe you know" or "how do you know you know" and many
variations on a theme.
Just befor I went to bed, I asked myself "whats the most useful
contribution can make to the group tonight"...knowing that if there was
something useful , it would 'come out'....and it did (knew it would).
Knowing is not 'static'. It is a recognition of the source of all
information, and it differs from belief ,in that it 'comes from within'.(In
tuition)
In the early days you can "know yo are right and the following day, know you
are wrong". This is a challenge to ones own honesty, which is why I suggest
it is an early stage.
Of course, one is never wrong. Just has limited pov's which are often
influenced by others with a desire to comply (which, by definition is more
to do with beliefs.)
Another way of putting this is "if my reality comes from others , I am
wrong, but if I develop the same view under my own volition, I am right'.
There, I just knew I knew ...:-).
BOfL
|
| |
|
| | 17 Comments |
|
|
Author: MillerMiller Date: Dec 26, 2007 08:24
> The most contentious issue here is that of "knowing".
>
> "You just believe you know" or "how do you know you know" and many
> variations on a theme.
>
> Just befor I went to bed, I asked myself "whats the most useful
> contribution can make to the group tonight"...knowing that if there was
> something useful , it would 'come out'....and it did (knew it would).
>
> Knowing is not 'static'. It is a recognition of the source of all
> information, and it differs from belief ,in that it 'comes from
> within'.(In tuition)
>
> In the early days you can "know yo are right and the following day, know
> you are wrong". This is a challenge to ones own honesty, which is why I
> suggest it is an early stage.
>
> Of course, one is never wrong. Just has limited pov's which are often ...
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Dec 26, 2007 09:36
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:38:02 GMT, "brian fletcher" bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>The most contencious issue here is that of "knowing".
>
>"You just believe you know" or "how do you know you know" and many
>variations on a theme.
>
>Just befor I went to bed, I asked myself "whats...
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 26, 2007 13:52
On Dec 27, 12:38 am, "brian fletcher" bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> The most contencious issue here is that
> of "knowing".
You claim to know is a state of consciousness, which now requires you
to explain what you know about consciousness, you better get off,
you'll get giddy Brian.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Dec 26, 2007 16:10
"Miller" chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:hevcj.14$rg6.8@newsfe06.lga...>> The most contentious issue here is that of "knowing".
>>
>> "You just believe you know" or "how do you know you know" and many
>> variations on a theme.
>>
>> Just befor I went to bed, I asked myself "whats the most useful
>> contribution can make to the group tonight"...knowing that if there was
>> something useful , it would 'come out'....and it did (knew it would).
>>
>> Knowing is not 'static'. It is a recognition of the source of all
>> information, and it differs from belief ,in that it 'comes from
>> within'.(In tuition)
>>
>> In the early days you can "know yo are right and the following day, know
>> you are wrong". This is a challenge to ones own honesty, which is why I ...
|
| Show full article (1.43Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Dec 26, 2007 16:15
"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3q35n35soqbffu1p0f6ke6avpksud6sreo@4ax.com...> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:38:02 GMT, "brian fletcher"
> bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>The most contencious issue here is that of "knowing".
>>
>>"You just believe you know" or "how do you know you know" and many
>>variations on a theme.
>>
>>Just befor I went to bed, I asked myself "whats the most useful
>>contribution can make to the group tonight"...knowing that if there was
>>something useful , it would 'come out'....and it did (knew it would).
>>
>>Knowing is not 'static'. It is a recognition of the source of all
>>information, and it differs from belief ,in that it 'comes from
>>within'.(In
>>tuition)
>>
>>In the early days you can "know yo are right and the following day, know ...
|
| Show full article (1.75Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 26, 2007 18:16
On Dec 27, 9:15 am, "brian fletcher" bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Chemistry is not consciousness, but consciousness 'evokes' biochemical
> reaction.
So what evokes consciousness? You'll get giddy, or are you saying, as
all Kantians do, that your state of consciousness has no cause, no
trigger, no beginning no end, therefore no identity, no need of "food"
and therefore precedes all of that which it is conscious of?
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: WordsmithWordsmith Date: Dec 26, 2007 18:19
On Dec 26, 10:36 am, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:38:02 GMT, "brian fletcher" bigpond.net.au> wrote:>>The most contencious issue here is that of "knowing".
>
>>"You just believe you know" or "how do you know you know" and many
>>variations on a theme.
>
>>Just befor I went to bed, I asked myself "whats the most useful
>>contribution can make to the group tonight"...knowing that if there was
>>something useful , it would 'come out'....and it did (knew it would).
>
>>Knowing is not 'static'. It is a recognition of the source of all
>>information, and it differs from belief ,in that it 'comes from within'.(In
>>tuition)
>
>>In the early days you can "know yo are right and the following day, know you
>>are wrong". This is a challenge to ones own honesty, which is why I suggest
>>it is an early stage.
>
>>Of course, one is never wrong. Just has limited pov's which are often ...
|
| Show full article (1.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Dec 26, 2007 18:27
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:19:35 -0800 (PST), Wordsmith rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 10:36 am, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:38:02 GMT, "brian fletcher" bigpond.net.au> wrote:>>>The most contencious issue here is that of...
|
| Show full article (1.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: malenoidmalenoid Date: Dec 27, 2007 04:03
On Dec 26, 7:16 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Dec 27, 9:15 am, "brian fletcher" bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>> Chemistry is not consciousness, but consciousness 'evokes' biochemical
>> reaction.
>
> So what evokes consciousness?
Ayn Rand, of course, without whom you wouldn't even be capable
of a single thought to call your own.
> You'll get giddy, or are you saying, as
> all Kantians do, that your state of consciousness has no cause,
Ayn Rand.
> no trigger,
Ayn Rand.
>no beginning no end,
Ayn Rand.
> therefore no identity,
Ayn Rand.
> no need of "food"
|
| Show full article (0.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
