Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: no such thing as a Hippy except in this artificial conception conceived by no one

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Humans, using the scientific method, can use electrons to make complex calculations. If ten people enter the same complex mathematical question into ten different hand calculators they will get the same answer.

You bull-{!#%@} religion cannot explain that at all. [/color] :lol:
Conscious intelligence can explain more than you'll ever know about reality because there is only consciousness.
I can provide some very good links if your interested, they will blow your mind, you wont even understand them so what's the use anyway..all your saying is what you accuse me of, repeating like a parrot what's already known by consciousness....it is consciousness repeating itself only.

The only religion that exists is inside your phantom head...it doesn't have any independent reality separate from your conception of it, albeit, illusory conception... You are so hopelessly hung up on the religion word conditioned into your mind by your culture through eons and eons of years, that you adamantly believe it is a real thing... without ever using your own intelligence to figure out that it's nothing more than an imagined concept no one made up...you fail to see what non-conceptual non-dual reality actually is which is reality as it is before it is artificially conditioned by the mind.

But then that is also consciousness being like that ...so be it...that's what appearing as and through the body mind mechanism named Matt.

so be it, it's your religion, your belief only, you have no proof any one else thinks like that

As for Humans, using the scientific method...you choose the word human ..I choose the word Consciousness, using the scientific method

Two different concepts, appearing in the SAME ONE AWARENESS.. AKA REALITY... that looks on in detachment

This is it..it's all ready done, no one did it

Elvis has left the building

Welcome to the zombie jamboree

bye,

enjoy arguing with yourself.


listen for the echo

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Io » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:23 am

placid wrote:If there are multiple knowers... then who is the knower that is able to tell if another knower's knowledge is correct or not? surely if they are the knower of what they know, then they surely do know?

...

So the question is, who would be the other knower that knows whether someone else's knowing is false or true? how would they possibly know that?
The way to tell if someone or something (or, I'm assuming, as you term it "another knower" in your somewhat confused questioning) is 'true' is to employ the scientific method. That is exactly the purpose of the scientific method: to discover what is true as closely as possibly whilst relying on as few unproven assumptions as possible, including reliance on assertions from others.
placid wrote:People claim to be the knower, but when they are asked about who that knower is there is ridicule or silence, they simply don't know how to respond.
The response already given is I am the knower. "I" being whoever is currently themselves. In this case, me. In Aztexan's case it's Aztexan. You don't seem to be responding to this.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:37 am

Io wrote:
placid wrote: The response already given is I am the knower. "I" being whoever is currently themselves. In this case, me. In Aztexan's case it's Aztexan. You don't seem to be responding to this.
If Aztex is the knower, then s/he would know how to make living consciousness from non-living matter.

So intuition, innate knowing says, no one knows what consciousness is and they do not have to know, they are it.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Io » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:46 am

placid wrote:If Aztex[an] is the knower, then s/he would know how to make living consciousness from non-living matter
Ok, one thing at a time. This is a non-sequitur: you've given no evidence (or even explanation) why existing (being the knower) would produce an ability to make living consciousness from non-living matter. And you have offered no explanation of what that phrase means or how it might be achieved.

Give me this information before you move on to anything else. And ideally could you do it in full coherent sentences rather than fragments of disconnected sentences separated by ellipses?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10851
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Poodle » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:49 am

Io ... placid responds only to throw little tantrums (it seems to me they should be called tantra, for some reason). She only declaims, her declamations becoming increasingly strident as the day wears on and she (dual choice: drinks more booze: smokes more dope). Watch her spelling deteriorate throughout today - it's a sure sign. She's not here to discuss or listen. All she wants to do is use simplistic early-hippy-days techniques to make herself (she thinks) appear intellectual. You'll notice a lot of inappropriate juxtaposition of opposites (Aw, man, the light's so {!#%@}' heavy, man). She's away with the fairies and refuses to do anything about it. She does 'ripen' and then disappear for months at a time - those periods may coincide with some form of shelter or treatment, but that's just my guess.
Logic doesn't work on her. Language doesn't work on her. Nothing works on her until she 'ripens' fully and, I assume, seeks help or has help imposed. We can only hope - for her sake - that her ripening happens soon and she receives the treatment she needs.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Io » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:50 am

I need to listen out for the postman bringing me some lovely records and don't really have a huge amount of anything to do today, so I've got time :)

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:41 am

Io wrote:
placid wrote:If Aztex[an] is the knower, then s/he would know how to make living consciousness from non-living matter
Ok, one thing at a time. This is a non-sequitur: you've given no evidence (or even explanation) why existing (being the knower) would produce an ability to make living consciousness from non-living matter. And you have offered no explanation of what that phrase means or how it might be achieved.

Give me this information before you move on to anything else. And ideally could you do it in full coherent sentences rather than fragments of disconnected sentences separated by ellipses?
Note...I'm using the word ''you'' as a reference point only ..not referring to an assumed entity.

You can only know you exist... you cannot know another you exists. There is an assumption there is another you that exists because you self evidently exist without doubt or error... but proving another you separate from your you is impossible, the idea of ''other'' is just an assumption arising in you.

So when the you Io refers to Aztex as also being the knower how is that possibly known by you, as I've said, you can only experience you not another.

This tells us that we all share the same knower, the knower that's in me in the same knower that's in you.

The ''you'' is created from within it's own self. ..self aware...

Therefore there can only be one knower, one with itself...and the belief that there are other knowers is just an appearance of this one knower...it's only ever one appearing as the many.

No ''name tag'' is the I Am ..The ''name tag'' is an experience the ''I Am'' is having, ...the ''name tag'' doesn't know, it is the known known by the I Am only. One with the knowing which is Consciousness.

Consciousness is the one common denominator shared by all sentient animate and inanimate objects...there is no object separate from the subject I AM.... I Am is only ever subject objectifying itself....I am the object of my desire...so to speak.

This is what I am driving at..does this make sense so far, if not ask for more clarification?

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Io » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:28 am

placid wrote:Note...I'm using the word ''you'' as a reference point only ..not referring to an assumed entity.
Ok.
placid wrote:You can only know you exist... you cannot know another you exists. There is an assumption there is another you that exists because you self evidently exist without doubt or error... but proving another you separate from your you is impossible, the idea of ''other'' is just an assumption arising in you.
I don't think anyone has asserted that there is more than one of me or of anyone else. I don't know anything about dualism, if this is even a constituent of it. Regardless, only would this be true if considering a self-contained fictional 'idea universe' and would have no bearing on the real universe that I am, for simplicity, assuming exists. The rest of your almost-sentence is therefore irrelevant.
placid wrote:So when the you Io refers to Aztex as also being the knower how is that possibly known by you, as I've said, you can only experience you not another.
I do not claim to know that "Aztex" as you insist on writing despite Aztexan being the correct spelling (and I apologise Aztexan for roping you into this nonsense) is a knower, but I assume that it is true since Aztexan comes up with textual information that I did not and so must originate outside of me. I assume that Aztexan operates in broadly the same way as I do and so the broad properties I ascribe to myself (those contextually relevant at any rate) are also true of him/her. I assume the same of placid.
placid wrote:This tells us that we all share the same knower, the knower that's in me in the same knower that's in you.
This does not. Unless you are using "knower" as a conceptual term rather than referring to a specific entity. You sometime use "knower" to mean a single instance of a knower and yet also use it to describe the idea of a knower. That's like saying that we all have a head so therefore we must all have the same head. Balls.
placid wrote:The ''you'' is created from within it's own self. ..self aware...
I guess the ellipsis thing is not going to stop eh.
placid wrote:Therefore there can only be one knower, one with itself...and the belief that there are other knowers is just an appearance of this one knower...it's only ever one appearing as the many.

No ''name tag'' is the I Am ..The ''name tag'' is an experience the ''I Am'' is having, ...the ''name tag'' doesn't know, it is the known known by the I Am only. One with the knowing which is Consciousness.

Consciousness is the one common denominator shared by all sentient animate and inanimate objects...there is no object separate from the subject I AM.... I Am is only ever subject objectifying itself....I am the object of my desire...so to speak.

This is what I am driving at..does this make sense so far, if not ask for more clarification?
[/quote][/quote]

It doesn't make sense because you are asserting thing y follows on from thing x without demonstrating that it is, or even could be the case. Try explaining why the things you're asserting may be true instead of just asserting them.

edit: close quote tag. edit2: Balls! that didn't work. give up with the tag.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:53 am

Okay dear sheeple @ the skeptic forum this message is not getting through so I'm just going to stop responding to replies.

I'm just going to post stuff for you to contemplate for yourself, you can make of it how ever which way you choose to translate it and respond or not. Hopefully, you will recognise something I present that will jog your memory of who you actually are, not who you think you are.

I will stick to this thread only, and not bother any other thread, wouldn't want to inflame this whole forum, it would be a shame to watch it spontaneously combust after all the hard thinking by no one that has been imputed into it.

I will leave my first offering for you to contemplate in the next post below, in bold so you can see without having to take off your google goggles.

All replies will be read, but not responded to you, good luck, hope you all find what you are looking for soon, my mission here is to remind you what you have only temporally forgotten.

Signed Love disguised as madness.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:54 am

How can you know yourself? You would have to split yourself up in two, the knower and the known.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:58 am


IT is not some-thing to be known by someone. IT is the knowing that cannot be known. In essence you are that Knowing

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:01 am

All replies will be ignored, because the I Am is tired of arguing with itself. It's like how many ways can I think of to piss myself off today.

Such a futile waste of energy. :slapfight:
Last edited by placid on Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Io » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:02 am

You complain when people don't engage, then when they do you go off in a huff because you can't justify or explain your assertions. Well, it's ok, the postman's been now so I can get on with my day.

And your assertion that you need to split into two in order to simply understand yourself is simply not something I agree with. Self-comprehension is a property of the mind. Only one needed.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:08 am

What mind?

Where is mind?

Who is mind?

Who lifted the sun into the sky?
So that it heated the air and made the wind blow?
So that it evaporated water to form clouds?
So that rain fell and watered the land?
So that plants grew and developed and made oxygen?
So that animals evolved
Until some of them could sit around and wonder who?

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:11 am

my mind's made up
but
who made it?

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:13 am

So who makes up the mind ?

Good question: the one question to all our answers.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10851
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Poodle » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:20 am

What is it with you, placid? One of our newer members is kind enough to try to communicate with you and all you can do is continue in your stupidity. You're not going to ignore all replies for more than an hour because you simply can't help yourself - you'll be peddling your rubbish again very shortly. Oh - in fact I see it's already begun.
Read this carefully, placid - no one is going to believe your deposited 'wisdom' because it's all trite nonsense. You don't understand a word of what you're saying - you can't because in your hands it becomes simply so much psychobabbly rubbish.
Tonight you'll be tired again and your language (the straightforward and the colourful) will have deteriorated again to the point of maniacal illiteracy. This time, why don't you do yourself a favour? Cut it short and go to see your doctor BEFORE you put yourself back through your personal wringer. It's up to you - it makes no difference to me apart from a whole heap of chuckles if you persist. I just hate to see you make such an exhibition of yourself AGAIN.

Confidencia
BANNED
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Placid : The world's most confused Hippy

Post by Confidencia » Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:53 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Confidencia wrote: electron, photons and protons are all conscious
placid wrote: An electron is a concept, created by the mind, it doesn't know anything...
We already debunked these two conflicting religious claims in one go


:lol: You have debunked nothing!!!

Humans, using the scientific method, can use electrons to make complex calculations. If ten people enter the same complex mathematical question into ten different hand calculators they will get the same answer.

You bull-{!#%@} religion cannot explain that at all.
:lol:

I've already told you, those ten people are not so different. It is merely ten units of the same thing.

WHETHER TEN UNITS OR TEN THOUSAND UNITS FUNDAMENTALLY IT IS THE SAME CONSCIOUSNESS MAKING THE CALCULATION.

Every calculator works on the same principle of conversion. It is just ten different units working on the same principle of conversion. If you put in a set of rules the outcome will be based on that working principle.

:mrgreen: If you take the complexed and make it simple you will come to the same conclusion. For instance if Ten people fill ten bottles with the same amount of water they will get the same volume. 8-)

The problem with you ellard is that you have learnt by rote thus you are not very intelligent, intellectual maybe but not very intelligent.

If your memory capacity is good, in other words if a certain subject interests you; potentially your capacity to remember the information relating to that subject will increase. This gives you the ability to collect large amounts of useless information and save it to memory. This is what you bring here. A regurgitation of intellect rubbish on demand. :lol: But regurgitating intellectual information is not intelligence.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:59 pm

placid wrote:Q
Image

- -

Image

--

Image

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10851
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Poodle » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:10 pm

Keeping Confyplacids

I'm often asked if they make good pets. No. I've never known anything so judgemental as a confyplacid. Confyplacids hide in the verbal undergrowth and, occasionally, defecate turds of their philosophy under the soles of unsuspecting humans. They are aggressive, spitting a lot when poked, but tend to be cowardly at heart. Intellectually, confyplacids tend to be on the less gifted side, attempting to regurgitate pseudo-Eastern philosophy as if it were their own but failing because even pseudo-Eastern philosophy demands a degree of thought - and thought bothers confyplacids very much.
Confyplacids should not be kept as pets, ever. The outcome is inevitable. The confyplacid will be thrown in the nearest pond with a brick tied to its flippers and its erstwhile owner will suffer alternating fits of guilt and hilarious relief.

Don't do it, kids. Confyplacids should be left where you find them. Don't forget to carefully replace the stone you turned.
Last edited by Poodle on Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19290
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:13 pm

Ha, ha..........poodle.....you're putting in a lot of work for zero expected return. How does it feel that good?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10851
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Poodle » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:27 pm

Oh, it's not zero return, bobbo. Every little bit gets right under their skin, where it rankles and irritates. It's fair exchange.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:29 pm

Mind is nothing more then the mistaking of images on a screen for reality.

Zero points of reference, nothing to lose, nothing to gain.

Mind mostly doesn't like the pointer of all-inclusiveness. What can it do with it?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10851
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Poodle » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:38 pm

See?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10851
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Poodle » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:44 pm

placid wrote:Mind is nothing more then the mistaking of images on a screen for reality.

Zero points of reference, nothing to lose, nothing to gain.

Mind mostly doesn't like the pointer of all-inclusiveness. What can it do with it?
However, why ignore a gift?

OK - antennae up, placid.
Mind must be more than (not then!) the mistaking of images on a screen for reality. You see, images on a screen have, by definition, points of reference. So that does away with your second point. After that, your mind wanders a bit, as your 'mind mostly doesn't ...' stuff doesn't follow in any way from what went before.
You're welcome.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Aztexan » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:01 pm

I wanna play, too!
Much as the universe projects its imaginary existence onto the eyes of the human vessel, consciousness projects itself to give us the sense of reality that isn't and never was.
Consciousness is an entity outside of timespace.
I know.

purple voodoo. Nice, smooth high. $15/g
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:05 pm

If someone comes to give you a gift and you do not receive it, to whom does the gift belong?

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:06 pm

The mind does not see. The mind is the seen. The seen cannot see.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Placid : The world's most confused Hippy

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:10 pm

Confidencia wrote:But regurgitating intellectual information is not intelligence.
I'm only replying to real intelligence.

Image

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:12 pm

“To become more conscious is the greatest gift anyone can give to the world; moreover, in a ripple effect, the gift comes back to its source.”

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Aztexan » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:12 pm

What was never heard was never spoken

Humanity is the canvas and space is the artist and time is the brush that brings it to life

To gaze into the skies is to look inward and see emptiness
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10851
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Poodle » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:13 pm

placid wrote:If someone comes to give you a gift and you do not receive it, to whom does the gift belong?
I said quite openly that my message was for you (and your codualentitic friend). You must have received it, as the coincidence of posting as you just have postulating a non-reception, although interesting, is beyond the realms of cogent belief. It's all yours, plassy (may I call you that?).

Edit: My goodness, you HAVE been busy! Irritated, much?
Last edited by Poodle on Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Aztexan » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:14 pm

Death is to the mind what being is to awareness
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Nikki Nyx » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:19 pm

Poodle wrote:Keeping Confyplacids

I'm often asked if they make good pets. No.
Besides, what on Earth do they eat? Existential angst chow? :P
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:20 pm

If an insult falls on deaf ears, who is insulted?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Nikki Nyx » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:21 pm

placid wrote:The mind does not see. The mind is the seen. The seen cannot see.
Wrong. I can both see my own eyes AND see WITH them. Thus does the seen see, yea verily.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Nikki Nyx » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:23 pm

Aztexan wrote:What was never heard was never spoken

Humanity is the canvas and space is the artist and time is the brush that brings it to life

To gaze into the skies is to look inward and see emptiness
The fourth quote is the best one, although it only exists as potential at the moment. Will you fulfill your destiny and post the fourth quote? Or will you exert your free will and refuse to comply with fate?
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by Nikki Nyx » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:24 pm

placid wrote:If an insult falls on deaf ears, who is insulted?
Insulting the deaf should always be done in ASL.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:28 pm

The eye sees everything except itself.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Who is the Knower of Knowledge?

Post by placid » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:39 pm

placid wrote:Q
Image